CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 30, 1995
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 12965
Motion for concurrence in 78th report 12965
(Motion agreed to.) 12965
Motion moved and agreed to 12965
Motion moved and agreed to 12965
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12965
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12965
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12966
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12979
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12980
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12981
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12983
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12996
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12997
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 12997
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 12998
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 12998
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 12999
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13000
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13001
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13001
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13002
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13002
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13002
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13003
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 13003
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 13003
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 13004
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 13004
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13004
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13004
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13004
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13005
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13007
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13009
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13009
Consideration resumed of motion 13010
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13010
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 13019
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 13021
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 183 13028
Consideration resumed of motion 13029
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 38; Nays, 187 13029
(Motion negatived.) 13030
Bill C-91. Consideration resumed of motion 13030
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 187; Nays, 38 13031
Bill C-82. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 13032
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 79 13032
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee) 13033
Bill C-248. Motion for second reading 13033
12965
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 30, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
two petitions.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 81(4)
(a), the following motion, standing in the name of
the Leader of the Opposition, is deemed adopted: ``That,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)
(a), consideration of Privy
Council votes 1, 5, 10 and 35 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1996, by the Standing Committee on
Government Operations, be extended beyond May 31, 1995''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, when the House last sat on Friday I presented to the
House the 78th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs regarding associate membership of the
Standing Committee on Finance.
I believe it would be appropriate that I move that the 78th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, May 19, be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a second motion.
There is a change in the membership of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to
associate members. If the House gives its consent, I move:
That the name of the following member be added to the list of associate
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr.
Alcock.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I move:
That pursuant to subsection 7.(7) of the Referendum Act, chapter 30,
Statutes of Canada, 1992, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs be the committee to undertake the review of the regulations proposed
under subsections 7(3)and (4) of the act.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1015)
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today to the House. In
the first residents within my riding of Langley, Abbotsford and
Aldergrove ask Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a
provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code which
states that in no case may a father or mother without serious
cause place obstacles between a child and grandparents and
failing agreement between the parties the modalities of the
relations are settled by the court.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): The second
petition, Madam Speaker, requests that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amendment the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
12966
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
the following two petitions from my riding. The first containing
53 signatures requests that Parliament ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): The second
petition, Madam Speaker, containing 50 signatures requests that
Parliament immediately extend protection to the unborn child
by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions protesting
Bill C-41 today. One hundred and eight additional constituents
of mine protest that Bill C-41 will establish a dual standard of
justice by punishing identical crimes with different sentences.
They also protest the inclusion of the undefined phrase sexual
orientation in federal legislation because they feel it will lead to
some people being given special legal rights.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I also have the honour to present two additional
petitions against Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Three hundred
and seven more petitioners feel existing gun control laws are
doing the job in Canada, that new laws will be ineffective and
expensive and that money and resources ought to be diverted
toward fighting crime instead of fighting responsible gun
owners.
I am pleased to agree with both of these petitions.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today presenting
petitions signed by constituents of Prince George-Peace River.
They feel that no amount of gun control has ever succeeded in
preventing criminals from acquiring guns by illegal means.
Furthermore, the petitioners feel that many existing firearms
regulations were brought in for a matter of public policy with no
regard to future effectiveness and potential benefit.
Therefore they ask Parliament to support laws which punish
criminals using firearms, support, recognize and protect the
rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms, and abolish any existing gun control laws which have
proven to be ineffective.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12966
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved:
That this House deplore the government's employment equity policy as
unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular, intrusive, discriminatory and
harmful to designated and non-designated groups; that this House recognize
the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based
solely on merit rather than on gender and race; and that discriminatory
employment practices be more vigorously pursued on an individual, case by
case basis.
(1020)
He said: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your reading that
through to its very logical conclusion. I appreciate the way you
put the emphasis on the right spots and so on. It was well read.
Employment equity is really the last gasp effort of an old
government style brought forward from the 1960s and 1970s
that says governments need to be involved in every little aspect
of Canadian life.
When one finds an area in which the government is not
involved it seems this government is still hanging on to the
residual of an idea that perhaps what we should do is interfere
wherever we can in the marketplace, in people's lives, in
intrusive legislation; employment equity probably being the last
serious effort to intrude in corporate and individual lives from
coast to coast.
Employment equity is a road paved with good intentions. It is
an idea that perhaps by enforcing certain racial goals, numerical
goals and targets on employment hiring practices we can
somehow make Canada more discrimination free and that we
will all live in the utopia the Liberals would have us believe is
just around the bend.
Employment equity and affirmative action have fallen on hard
times lately around the world. Employment equity is being
challenged and being defeated in the United States courts,
including the Supreme Court, one case after another.
12967
There is a proposition in California that will banish
affirmative action plans from its law books probably within the
year. In Canada, however, instead of following the lead of
around the world which is to get away from social manipulation,
for some reason the government has decided to expand the
employment equity program.
It has brought in Bill C-64 which will expand it to include not
only people regulated by the federal government but the entire
public service, the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces, CSIS
and so on. It is a very intrusive bill. It smacks of social
engineering of the worst kind. In the bottom line, it is very
discriminatory and that is why the Reform Party opposes it.
In the last week I clipped two or three pieces from a
newspaper. I am wondering whether we are in tune with the
Canadian people; are we reflecting the things that concern
them? Recent opinion polls say that 74 per cent of Canadians
oppose employment equity in Canada. In my province of British
Columbia, 81 per cent oppose employment equity. The
government, instead of retrenching and rethinking this idea, has
decided at this time to expand it.
What are the newspapers saying lately? Is it on people's
minds? It certainly is on people's minds in Ontario where there
is a provincial election going on. The Globe and Mail, hardly a
radical paper, in talking about Mr. Harris says he will do away
with the employment equity program if given a chance as the
premier of Ontario.
The paper asked: ``Is it radical to propose that Canada's only
quota base affirmative action program'', meaning the
employment equity program, ``which effectively requires
discrimination in employment against white males be dropped
along with the requirement to track employees by race, sex and
disability?'' No, the Globe and Mail says that is not radical at
all, that it only makes common sense.
A May 27 article from the Globe and Mail says employment
equity is no way to run a railroad or a newspaper. I might add
that it is no way to run a country.
The article goes through the litany of problems with the
employment equity program, everything from how expensive it
is to how it is discriminatory, intrusive and gives a lot of power
of invasion. It is so intrusive in Ontario it had to be exempt from
the Ontario human rights act because one cannot be in
compliance with the human rights act at the same time as one is
forcing employment equity. That is how discriminatory it is.
(1025)
Also interesting is the way much of this argument rests on a
few words. The government says numerical goals are really not
coercive and that numerical targets are not really quotas. The
government says not to worry, it has numerical goals; they are
not quotas, don't worry, be happy.
It is interesting because that is not according to what all
Liberals say. The federal and provincial wings of the Liberal
Party are divided. We saw a senior federal Liberal saying a
Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. We have had numerous
statements in the House from federal Liberals endorsing the
provincial Liberal program of Lyn McLeod. What did Lyn
McLeod say about employment equity?
Mr. Abbott: Lyn who?
Mr. Strahl: She is the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario.
On May 18 there was a major television debate which started off
with a question on employment equity, what would all three of
the major parties do with employment equity.
The provincial Liberal leader repeatedly attacked the NDP
premier of Ontario about the language of employment equity. I
quote from the Liberal leader of Ontario: ``For me employment
equity means ensuring that there is real equal opportunity in the
hiring process, in the promotion process. That to me means that
we do not support a quota approach by any other name,
including numerical targets. To me a quota approach in
employment equity is a violation of the principle of equal
opportunity''.
She went on to say numerical targets by any other name are an
approach to quota because it focuses on the end goal. It does not
deal with where the efforts should be, which is to ensure at the
start of the process that real barriers should be removed.
What does Bill C-64 propose? The government is now trying
to ram the bill through committee. One of the first sections of
the bill relates to numerical targets. It says not to worry, it is not
a quota, it is a numerical target. Numerical target is a harmless
little thing meaning, according to Lyn McLeod, a quota. That is
exactly what it is. It is a quota and hon. members know it. That is
why this kind of legislation is repugnant to people looking for
equal treatment for all Canadians and not special treatment for
some which causes discrimination against others.
She was talking about equality of opportunity. If I were to take
her position on this issue, she talks an awful lot like a Reformer.
I almost hate to admit that, but that is the Reform Party position.
The Reform Party position is we should ensure equality of
opportunity but we cannot guarantee equality of results.
I do not understand why the federal Liberals and the
provincial Liberals do not get their act together on this. They
should look through the two red books. They both have a red
book. One is more discredited than the other because the other
one has not been around for quite as long. The provincial red
book says they
12968
will abolish the numerical targets. That is why they are to do
away with it; it does not foster equality.
The leader of the provincial Conservatives says he will do
away with the whole program. The federal Liberals seem to be
eye to eye with the NDP. They are the only ones in the provincial
election who are saying numerical targets are admirable. They
along with the NDP seem to think it is a good idea. Even the
provincial Liberals say it is not a good idea.
The Liberals probably have honourable intentions. They
believe they are trying to foster an attitude of equal opportunity.
Unfortunately it is based on a series of wrong assumptions
which I will go through at this time.
To begin with, the idea we can somehow have numerical
parity, that numbers will somehow make things
non-discriminatory or more just is false.
(1030 )
There are all kinds of reasons why people are involved in
different occupations: cultural, geographic, economic,
historical. People have put other priorities in front of certain
types of jobs and people sometimes do not even want to enter the
workforce or do not want to work full time. There is never going
to be a precise numerical target equalling the representation of
the workforce in any one occupation. It is not possible. It will
never be possible, no matter how you try to legislate it.
The entire legislation is based on a false assumption. The
assumption is that Canadian employers are somehow
systemically discriminatory; they are bad. The assumption is
that they systemically discriminate against people, they are
guilty, and we must force them to jump through hoops. And even
if they are not guilty, their parents or grandparents probably
were, so we will force them to jump through the hoops and go
through a book of instructions. If they do not do as they are told
we will jump down on them with the compliance police in order
to make sure they do it.
It is wrong to assume that employers are discriminatory. I
realize we do not live in a perfect world, but where we have
examples of discrimination I say the courts and the human rights
tribunals should come down on them like a ton of bricks. We
have no patience on this side of the House for people who have
discriminatory practices toward anyone. All people should be
treated equally. When they are not, then the courts and the
tribunals should do their job and make sure that those employers
are punished properly. That has always been our position.
We also have big problems with the statistical base this whole
thing is founded on. For example, 10 per cent of aboriginals
refused to even be enumerated in the 1991 census. Also, we will
be working with 1991 statistics until the year 2003. In other
words, we are going to try to mesh current employment practices
with 12-year-old statistics at a time when the demographics of
Canada are changing so fast. It just is not going to work. Also,
broad statistical generalizations do not take into account that
certain groups, even if one believes in group rights, do not need
any help.
Not that I like to do this, but Statistics Canada breaks down
the Canadian population based on ethnicity and income. If we
take the top earning group in Canada by ethnicity, which I think
is a repugnant thing to even ask, the people of Japanese origin
have the highest per capita income of any group in Canada,
followed by Jews and Egyptians, if we take it by ethnicity.
Why would we want to put together an employment equity
program that favours, in this case, the highest per capita income
group in Canada? If we want to fulfil the letter of the law, if not
the spirit, all we have to do is say we will hire this group or that
group. Of course we should be hiring based on merit, not on
ethnicity. However, if we are filling our quota we may be filling
it up with people who do not need assistance, leaving others
aside and hiring those who already have a good job or a good
statistical average, if that is what matters.
It is interesting that the biggest problem with this statistical
base is that in 1991, 765,000 people refused to say what their
ethnic background was. Do you know what they put down? They
put down ``Canadian''. Statistics Canada said it would get to the
bottom of this by changing the next one so that people will have
to answer what their ethnic background is, because we cannot
have this dangerous trend where people are starting to call
themselves Canadians; we must have hyphenated Canadians.
Stats Canada is going to change its forms to ensure we get more
hyphenated answers in the next go around. I am so pleased to
hear that. That is disgusting.
We are also very concerned about the coercive nature of this.
Bill C-64 and the current employment equity practice says that
people must self-identify their ethnicity and whether they are
one of the four designated groups: a visible minority, a woman, a
disabled person, and what is the fourth one? Anyway, they must
self-identify. What happens if they do not self-identify? The
legislation and the courts say they cannot be forced to do it.
(1035)
It is interesting that DND must now take part in the new
process and it has started the identification process. It sends
around a questionnaire, which is in two parts. It says on the top:
``You must fill out out the top''-the top being your name, rank,
serial number, and so on. Part two is optional-wink, wink:
``You do not have to fill out the second part about your ethnic
background. You will not be discriminated against if you do not.
Do not worry about it. Just fill out the top. And if you do not fill
in the bottom part, that is fine. Do not worry.''
12969
Let us get serious. Once our name is on the piece of paper we
are not one of the players in the game. It is left up to the
personnel manager or the promotion officer or whoever to say:
``Is this guy playing by the rules or not? I am going to ask him to
fill out the bottom part and then we will get the ethnicity on this
piece of paper if it kills us.'' That is a very dangerous trend.
We think the whole system is wrong. It is very open to abuse
by those who might lie on a form. For example, what would
happen if we just encouraged everybody to put down that they
consider themselves a member of a minority group? Everybody
in Canada, let us all self-identify as minorities. In the end there
could be a whole program designed around totally false
statistical information, which of course is wrong.
I mentioned that there are only four designated groups.
Although the government has no plans at this time to admit other
groups, it is interesting how others can be read into it. We know
that the courts can read other groups into the charter of rights.
Last week, for example, although it did not actually say that
homosexuals are included under section 15 of the charter, the
federal court said they should be, doggone it, and they will be in
future court references. Therefore, the idea that there are only
four designated groups could well be expanded.
In the United States one New York firm had to do an entire
survey of its workforce, with special attention being given to
Canadian Americans, to find out if they had been discriminated
against. I guess I should be grateful for that. Maybe we will get
employment opportunities in the United States. It just shows
how ridiculous it can be when it is taken to its logical extreme.
Employment equity is also very expensive. In the United
States, where it has been in place for some 30 years, estimates
from Forbes magazine say that it now takes up almost 4 per cent
of GDP per year. Billions and tens of billions of dollars in the
United States are used up, wasted, instead of helping individuals
who need help. Money is wasted on government programs that
have not proven effective in helping these groups at all. In
Canada it is just starting, so it is not nearly as intrusive and not
nearly as expensive; still, it is estimated that about 1 per cent of
GDP is wasted on employment equity programs. That is $6
billion or $7 billion a year that is not even helping the people the
government wants to help. It is being wasted in book work,
reporting, jumping through the hoops, making it look good and
so on and not really helping people based on need.
Reform sees this very much as a drag on our economy and a
hidden tax on businesses that we cannot afford. It also hurts the
designated groups. Many studies have shown how people feel
patronized when we say we must have a program to make sure,
for example, that we must hire women at this particular place of
employment and we must have a special program. The inference
is that somehow women are not qualified. Well that is just
ridiculous. Fifty-five per cent of people who graduate from
universities today are female. I am pleased to see that women
have taken a leadership role in all avenues of our country and are
continuing to expand as we move from a culture that was
basically a home based job of rearing children and looking after
the house and so on. We have evolved from that to a culture
where women are accepted and should be accepted in all areas of
the economy.
(1040)
To say they somehow cannot compete on an even footing is
very patronizing, not only to women but to the other designated
groups as well. We have a role in government to ensure equality
of opportunity. We should challenge everyone to compete
equally. It is the role of government to ensure that and not to
dictate the results on the employment side.
There are many other things my colleagues will be bringing
up dealing with what is wrong with this whole idea. I look
forward to the debate as it unfolds.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am shocked and deeply saddened, as I am sure most
Canadians are, by the appalling lack of knowledge and the
insensitivity shown by the hon. member's motion. It would be
laughable were it not so lamentable.
Discrimination is no laughing matter. This mean-spirited
motion adds insult to injury for millions of Canadian women,
aboriginal peoples, visible minority members and persons with
disability who already know all too well the disadvantages of
being a member of these designated groups.
It is patently clear that this attempt to kill Bill C-64 is nothing
more than a desire to turn back the clock to the days when men
were men and everyone else knew their place. Canada cannot
afford the anachronistic attitudes embodied in this opposition
motion to stand in the way of progress.
To those who are members of the designated groups
employment equity is about human decency and democracy. It is
the freedom to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights, to
participate in the political process and to make contributions to
the economic and cultural fabric of Canada.
Employment equity means simply that everyone is treated
equally, not preferentially and not to the detriment of
non-designated Canadians. It means only that qualified
candidates, regardless of gender, race, or physical or intellectual
capacity, will be given equal consideration for recruitment and
will be promoted on the basis of merit.
12970
I would like to point out to the House the flawed thinking at
the foundation of this motion and to clarify the obvious
advantages of the proposed employment equity amendments.
Let me address the litany of complaints about Bill C-64 one by
one.
First let us look at the suggestion that the legislation is
unnecessary. Tell that to the Canadian human rights
commissioner, who in 1994 alone fielded a total of 1,372
complaints based on either disability, race, colour, national or
ethnic origin or sex.
I challenge the hon. member to test his thesis on persons with
disabilities in this country who are being hired in proportion
equivalent to about one-quarter of their representation. Along
with aboriginal peoples, they experience the highest
unemployment rates in this country, at 18.5 per cent, which is
double the national average.
Perhaps he might explain to young, visible minority
Canadians, who are generally better educated and trained at
higher levels than the general population, why they too
experience significantly higher rates of unemployment. Let him
tell the women of Canada there is no need for employment
equity when although they may prove themselves to be
eminently qualified for jobs they are often still unable to break
through the glass ceiling.
To quote Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, the former chair of
the royal commission on employment: ``For every woman in the
thousands whose glass ceilings have been melted, shattered or
raised, there are women in the millions who think a glass ceiling
is just one more object to polish''.
(1045 )
I want to remind the members of the Reform Party that white
male Canadians make up just 45 per cent of the workforce yet
they land 55 per cent of all jobs. Men account for roughly 90 per
cent of all senior managers. They also earn on average about 20
per cent more than women workers.
The recent Wannell and Caron report which looked at
employment equity groups among recent post-secondary
graduates found that even if men and women start out on an
equal basis in the labour market, a change occurs as they
progress in their careers. The earnings gap tends to grow over
time within a group of graduates. The report's authors
discovered the female-male earnings ratio dropped by 5 per cent
over a five year period.
I ask the House: Does any of this suggest members of
designated groups enjoy preferential treatment? The figures
speak for themselves.
Speaking of numbers, the opposition's claim that employment
equity is too costly just does not add up. This initiative has been
designed to minimize the regulatory burden and cost to business
by streamlining and simplifying the requirements into a single
legislative approach. To ensure any new regulations result in the
least burden possible, consideration is being given to using a
business impact test developed by the Department of Industry.
Coverage of the Employment Equity Act has not been
extended to include small business, nor has coverage of the
federal contractors program been expanded. The threshold
remains at 100 employees.
There will be some cost to private sector employers for
responding to audits under the act but they will be offset by the
savings resulting from the proposed amendments in the
Canadian Human Rights Act. Costs to government have also
been carefully calculated.
I can assure the House that the Department of Human
Resources Development will not experience any additional
expense as a result of this legislation. The Canadian Human
Rights Commission has also indicated it can undertake the
compliance related activities in Bill C-64 within its current
budget.
These cost considerations do not begin to take into account
the many economic benefits of employment equity. Progressive
employers report employment equity gives them a competitive
advantage. They say the legislation helps them attract, retain
and motivate employees from all backgrounds, not only an
advantage in terms of human resources but also in tapping the
more diverse marketplace. It is clear that on this front the
Reform Party is seriously misinformed, as it is with respect to
employment equity's popularity.
I remind the hon. member that the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons conducted
broad consultations, hearing from over 50 witnesses
representing the interests of business, labour and designated
groups. The vast majority of those witnesses indicated they were
in favour of employment equity. Needless to say, so are the
millions of Canadian women, persons with disabilities, visible
minorities and aboriginal people who make up more than half of
the country's population. It is hard to argue with numbers like
those.
I must confess I have the most difficulty trying to comprehend
the opposition's argument that employment equity has been
discriminatory and harmful to designated groups. While there is
undeniably a lot of work yet to be done, members of many of the
designated groups have seen substantial progress since the
original Employment Equity Act was introduced.
Women's representation in the workforce is now in line with
their availability, although many continue to be ghettoized in
low paid and part time work. Movement into management
positions is improving. Women's representation in middle
management positions increased from about one-third in 1987
to
12971
over 43 per cent in 1993, while their share of senior management
jobs more than doubled to just under 11 per cent.
(1050 )
Visible minorities have also made slow but continuing
progress in all occupational groups, including management. The
representation of visible minorities in the actual workforce
increased from 5 per cent in 1987 to more than 8 per cent in
1993. That is close to their 9.1 per cent availability rate. The
really good news is in the banking sector where visible
minorities enjoy their highest representation at 13.4 per cent.
It is important to point out to the House that these gains have
not come at the expense of other Canadians. In a statement
accompanying the 1994 annual report of the Canadian Human
Rights Commission, chief commissioner Max Yalden said: ``Far
from falling behind, able bodied white males appear to be
getting more than a proportionate share of hiring. Such data
hardly convey a convincing portrait of reverse discrimination''.
The very real danger of this motion is that it could cause
serious damage. If adopted, it would recreate in law an
unacceptable working standard for millions of disadvantaged
Canadians. It would tacitly condone racism, sexism and other
forms of discrimination which we know already exist in the
workplace.
It would permit prejudice to go unchecked and might even
encourage the outright acts of physical or sexual harassment of
the most vulnerable. Now that I have outlined what is wrong
with the opposition's motion, let me talk about what is right with
the actions this government has taken in the area of employment
equity through Bill C-64.
As we promised in the red book, the new employment equity
act will broaden its coverage to include both the public service
and the private sector. The revisions to the legislation will
establish the same core obligations on public and private sector
employers to develop and implement equity plans and
programs.
The present act covers roughly 5 per cent of all people
employed in Canada. Extending coverage within the public
service will add another 2 per cent. When one considers that
there are roughly 230,000 employees among the 80 federal
departments, boards and agencies, the changes represent a
substantial number of new opportunities for members of
designated groups.
Inclusion of the public sector is a fulfilment of our pledge in
the red book to have a federal workforce representative of the
public it serves. For the same reason, federal contractors will
also be obliged to comply with the principles of the Employment
Equity Act.
Another key improvement to the legislation is the increased
authority of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Its
mandate is being broadened to allow it to conduct audits of
public and private sector employers to verify and gain
compliance with the act.
The changes will clarify the commission's enforcement
powers to ensure that employers pay more than lip service to the
principle of employment equity. I can assure the House
however, that the amendments are not meant to be heavy
handed. The fact that an enforcement mechanism will be
established is a guarantee. The legislation is intended to achieve
a balance. The act will not set out to solve one set of problems
for employees by creating another one for employers. Changes
to the regulations will be minimal and developed in full
consultation with business.
This government is committed to creating an environment
conducive to economic growth and job creation. We are
convinced that the proposed amendments which will not
increase the paper burden will allow us to do just that. We are
working to do everything possible to ensure that every
Canadian, regardless of gender, race or physical attributes, has a
chance to fulfil his or her potential, to get a rewarding job and to
contribute to the social and economic health of Canada.
Employment equity is not an impediment to progress. It is a
catalyst for improvement in the workplace. Workforce diversity
will enhance Canadian companies' competitiveness in the
global economy at very little cost.
(1055 )
I ask members of this House how any of us can put a price tag
on personal fulfilment and the dignity that comes with having a
job. Ultimately, the amendments to the Employment Equity Act
are not about counting numbers or instituting new rules and
regulations. They are about providing enhanced opportunities
for self-sufficiency and self-satisfaction for women, aboriginal
peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible
minorities. They are about giving meaning to the lives of
millions of work ready Canadians, men and women seeking the
respect and recognition, the salary and enhanced lifestyle that
comes with work.
The proposed changes are designed to promote the optimal
use of our rich human resources. They are intended to act as a
stimulus to our national economy. They are a reflection of the
progressive way this government is addressing the employment
equity issue.
The misguided motion put forward by the opposition misses
the point. Bill C-64 is an affirmation that hiring and promotion
should be based on merit rather than special designation. The
bill is designed so those decisions are based solely on the bona
fide requirements of an occupation and not on any other non-job
related criteria.
The legislation clearly states that the obligation to implement
employment equity does not require an employer ``to hire or
promote unqualified persons''. With respect to the public sector
I will quote again: ``to hire or promote persons without basing
the hiring or promotion on selection according to merit''. That
12972
of course begs the question: What could anyone possibly find
discriminatory about that?
I can only conclude, as did the Canadian human rights
commissioner in the annual report last year, that occasionally
the tone of the opposition to employment equity seems more
than a little shrill. For all who believe in the principles of
democracy and the noble ideas of this institution, the
Employment Equity Act is a welcome reminder of the values we
hold dear as a nation. It is an affirmation that Canadians are just
and honourable people who passionately believe in fairness and
dignity for all.
I am proud to count myself among those individuals who
support employment equity. I urge members of this House to
defeat this draconian motion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am glad the member counts himself in support of
employment equity. In my province he joins 11 per cent of the
population who would agree with him, and only 11 per cent.
I was on a talk show last week about the issue of employment
equity. The host of the talk show asked me a couple of questions
which may be similar to what the hon. member mentioned. For
example, one question was: How will we make sure that
employers hire the best? The member talked about progressive
employers attracting the best employees. It may possibly be that
because this legislation was designed in Ottawa that this whole
concept is so flawed.
Members should take the time to come out to Vancouver
sometime because there is actually a country that exists beyond
the Rocky Mountains. They should come out and see what
British Columbia looks like. British Columbia, especially
Vancouver and the lower mainland, is the most cosmopolitan
area in Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of people from all different ethnic
backgrounds live in harmony together in the lower mainland and
work well together. By the year 2000, 85 per cent of all new job
applicants will come from those four designated groups. What
employer in Vancouver is going to say: ``I am going to refuse to
hire the best people I can get''. That is an employer who is on the
way out and is going broke.
(1100)
In Vancouver if employers are not prepared to hire the best
people, regardless of gender, visible minority status and so on,
they will not be able to compete on the west coast of Canada.
They must hire the best. Employers in the lower mainland find
this laughable. That is why there is only 11 per cent support in
the entire province. They look at this and say: ``We are hiring the
best. I do not care what gender they are, what colour they are or
what background they have. We want to hire the best people we
can''.
Although they talk about the progress since employment
equity was brought in, the old Employment Equity Act,
employers who have been covered under the act for the last eight
or nine years have done absolutely no better in hiring people
from the designated groups than employers who are not covered
under the act. In other words, they have done all the paperwork,
gone through the motions, done the surveys and spent the money
but it has not made a lick of difference. If it helped maybe I
would be persuaded, but it has not made any difference because
employers in the non-covered areas have done equally as well in
hiring people from the designated groups.
In Toronto, if we were to take the low income people by
ethnicity, Portuguese people have some of the lowest per capita
incomes, the lowest employment rates and one of the lowest
graduation rates from high schools. It is a problem in that
community. The ironic part is that they could live across the
street from someone who fits in a visible minority group and the
visible minority would be covered under the program but the
Portuguese people would not be covered. Why? Because they do
not fit the right criteria.
They have demonstrated need. They have historical
disadvantage. They have low per capita income. They have poor
job opportunities. They have less education. They have need of
assistance based on need, not based on ethnicity, but they cannot
get assistance because they are not in the right group. That is
totally unfair because that group needs help as much as or more
than any other person who might be living on that street.
I would like the member to respond to any of the comments I
have made and to give me examples from his list of employers
who have been using poor employment practices. As I
mentioned earlier, nowadays the people who refuse to hire the
best are the companies on the way out. That is good. If they are
not hiring the best they deserve to go broke. However they
should not have to hire based on a quota. If it is 80 per cent
female, what is the difference? If those are the best people they
can find for the job, great.
I would like him to tell me about his list of discriminatory
employers who he will whack into line with this coercive
legislation.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether
the hon. member listened to the speech I delivered or paid
enough attention to the great number of people who appeared
before the human rights and status of disabled persons
committee to understand that the Employment Equity Act is a
positive measure by the government to ensure that some of the
inequities in society are addressed in the fairest possible way.
12973
One of the exercises the hon. member should do, if he is
serious about bringing about positive change to society, is to
look at the power structure in the country, whether political or
economic, to see whether the cultural diversity present in the
population is reflected within the power structure. He could
perhaps read The Vertical Mosaic by Porter, which will
enlighten him a great deal about the sort of things we have to do
to make society a fairer and more just society than it is today. I
cited a few statistics during my speech that clearly illustrated it
was a very fair act that was trying to address some of the existing
inequities.
(1105)
I know where the hon. member and the Reform Party are
coming from. They are concerned a great deal about the white
male relationship to the economy. I understand their instinctual
response to that because obviously intellectually it is very poor.
I want to tell them again, so they can get it straight once and
for all, that while white Canadian males make up 45 per cent of
the workforce they land 55 per cent of the jobs. When Reform
members are speaking to their constituents they should present
them with the facts of life as they relate to the Canadian reality.
They should try to tell them that discrimination unfortunately
exists in the country. It does affect aboriginal people, persons
with disabilities and visible minorities who are not given fair
treatment in our economic system.
We as a society could close our eyes to that reality, or we as a
government could open our eyes to the reality and try to address
it. Through Bill C-64 the government is heading in the right
direction.
I say to the Reform Party that it should not kid itself.
Canadians understand where that party is coming from.
Mr. Abbott: Oh, yes.
Mr. Bevilacqua: They understand exactly what the motion is
all about. They read between the lines. The hon. member can
couch it in elegant language but we know what it is all about.
The Canadian people know what it is all about.
Reformers will have to go to the people of Canada and talk to
over 50 per cent of the Canadian population who have not been
given a fair deal. They will have to explain their stand and tell
them that the hiring practices existing in the country are fair to
all. When the Reformers have those answers they can come back
here. They can speak to the people with disabilities, to visible
minorities and to all the groups that appeared before the
committee. They can give them the right answers and not play
cheap politics with something that is extremely serious to our
economic system.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take part in the
debate. Once the House has returned to normal, you will permit
me to say what is obviously a fact and what I am proud to point
out: that the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill on employment
equity.
You will understand my concern that we should be dealing, in
this House today, with a motion that is, in my opinion,
ultraconservative. It is very backward and has a major strike
against it because it fails to take into account a basic premise,
which has been brought to our attention by a number of
witnesses since December. The Standing Committee on Human
Rights of which I am the vice-chairman has been working for
almost seven months on employment equity.
I can assure you that we have had a number of people come
and remind us that one would have to be completely blind and
particularly obtuse not to understand that, when it comes to
dealing with the labour market and finding one's niche in an
organization, people are not all equal before the law.
Permit me to point out that the notion of employment equity is
not new. In the early 1970s there was a movement in Canadian
society and people demanded that legislators intervene to
promote greater equality among individuals.
(1110)
There are, in the area of employment equity, two major types
of discrimination. There is discrimination, which is more at the
individual level in our society, which takes the form of prejudice
and stereotypes and which is found in interpersonal
relationships. There is another broad type of discrimination,
which is systemic. This means that the system, the labour
market, left on its own, would generate inequality of itself, and
we would find ourselves in a situation created by a set of
practices and procedures. The most obvious example of this,
which we all know, is that women do not have the same career
options.
These arguments could also apply to politics. We must
acknowledge that women interested in a political career face
additional requirements because there is a social division of
labour which takes for granted that women should be
responsible for child care. The same goes for the labour force. It
is much more difficult for a woman to reach management levels
because of the social pressures that still exist in our society.
That is why in 1983 the Liberal government then in power
asked Judge Rosalie Abella to lead a commission of inquiry and
recommend what could be done to achieve greater equity in the
workplace. What is interesting about this commission, which
made 31 recommendations-including some that have become
12974
law and some that are included in Bill C-64-is that the Isabella
Commission defined discrimination right off the bat. The
commission defined discrimination as the arbitrary barriers that
deny some people the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities.
This definition underlines the early link between the desire to
end discrimination and the notion of ability.
What I find most appalling, most disgusting in the Reform
rhetoric is that, throughout committee proceedings, they tried to
establish a false link between employment equity and ability. As
if public or private sector employers promoting employment
equity had to hire incompetent people.
Right from the start, the Abella Commission made it clear that
the two employment equity laws did not require employers in
any way to hire incompetent people.
There is something very loathsome as well as some dishonest
associations in the Reform Party's arguments.
What was the situation? Now that the Employment Equity Act
has been in effect for nearly seven years, we see that some
progress has been made. Let us look, for example, at the four
designated groups. As members know, employment equity is a
requirement for private sector employers with 100 or more
employees. At the present time, the Employment Equity Act
affects roughly 5 per cent of the labour force and 350 employers.
We have not done nearly as much as we could to provide greater
coverage for the labour force.
So, any employer who employs one hundred or more
employees and does business under federal jurisdiction is
required to develop employment equity plans indicating how he
will ensure that his workforce better reflects the representation
of various groups in the Canadian workforce. This is the
purpose, the basis for the Employment Equity Act. Employers
are asked to pay special attention to four groups which have a
harder time finding a place in our society.
(1115)
Which are these four groups? They are, as you know, visible
minorities, members of ethnic communities; women of course,
to whom you are very sensitive and who make up 52 per cent of
the Canadian population; aboriginal people and people with
disabilities.
Figures show that progress has been made. There are certainly
more women and members of visible minorities in the
workplace today than before. Let me give you some figures.
In 1987, one year after the Employment Equity Act was first
passed, visible minorities represented five per cent of the labour
force; in 1993, they represented 8.09 per cent of the labour
force. So, there have been gains; there has been some progress.
But can we reasonably assume that, without legislation to
sensitize employers to visible minority integration, without
influencing the labour market in any way, this would have
happened anyway? I think not.
As for women, in 1987, they represented 40.93 per cent of the
labour force and, a few years later, in 1993, 45 per cent. There
have indeed been gains, but we must never lose sight of the fact
that women make up half of the Canadian population and that it
would be unacceptable for the workplace not to reflect this
reality.
As for the other two designated groups, namely aboriginal
people and persons with disabilities, they may well be the
greatest source of concern to us parliamentarians. While the
situation is relatively positive for women and for members of
visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with
disabilities still have a long way to go.
In 1987, it will be remembered, aboriginal people accounted
for 0.66 per cent of the workforce, compared to 1.04 per cent in
1993. This is not even a one per cent improvement. It is
important to recognize the need to make room for more
aboriginal people on the labour market.
Persons with disabilities account for 13 per cent of Canada's
population, something which cannot be overlooked as we are
about to enter the 21st century. There are more and more persons
with disabilities in our society. These people want to work, and
they can be part of the labour force. In 1987, persons with
disabilities accounted for 1.59 per cent of the work force,
compared to 2.56 per cent in 1993. This represents an increase of
just under one per cent.
These figures are a reminder that, when it comes to
employment equity, we can certainly not say ``mission
accomplished''. There is still work to be done. I take exception
to the comments made by the Reform Party.
Throughout the proceedings, we heard Reform members
shamelessly and unacceptably claim that, in 1995, there existed
what they called reverse discrimination. They said that, in our
society as well as in the workplace, those who are discriminated
against and for whom policies are required are in fact white men
with no handicap, a group which the neoconservatives of the
Reagan era called the silent majority. This is the simplistic
argument used by Reform members.
Yet, we see-according to the figures released by the
Canadian Human Rights Commission-that white men with no
handicap hold 55 per cent of available jobs, while accounting for
45 per cent of the workforce.
Given these figures, how could we possibly agree with the
simplistic views of the Reform members and their comments on
reverse discrimination?
Another study, conducted by the Pearson Institute, is very
enlightening. Two years ago, this institute estimated that, of the
people in the top 500 positions in Canada, the movers and
shakers who make the most important decisions and have
12975
enormous influence on the government's decisions, less than 1
per cent were aboriginal people, less than 4 per cent belonged to
a visible minority and less than 12 per cent were women.
(1120)
And there are nevertheless still people around who say that
there is no need to legislate a more even distribution of
influence, power and management positions in our society, than
what currently exists.
If they would only make the effort to methodically write up
the profiles of the members of each designated group, they
would see that there are still some extremely unsettling
problems and inequalities. Of course, we are not saying that
nothing good has come of the legislation in the seven years since
it was passed. We realize that women and visible minorities
have made advances. But we can in no way sit back and exclaim:
``Mission accomplished''.
Let us look a little closer at the realities of the designated
groups. In 1994, even 1995, it is downright awful that the
average woman working in the private sector, doing exactly the
same job, reporting at exactly the same level in the management
chain, and holding exactly the same responsibilities as her male
counterpart earns approximately 66 per cent of what the man
earns. It is statistics like that which should make us all
indignant. Why should we tolerate, as parliamentarians, the fact
that, as our society prepares to enter the 21st century, a woman
and a man with the same responsibilities and qualifications are
not paid the same salary?
It is odd that the Reform Party does not mention this reality.
This is absolutely incredible, given the large-scale awareness
campaigns led by Treasury Board. So, how is it that, during the
course of our work the Reform Party never concerned itself with
this reality? What about visible minorities? If we conducted a
little experiment and put ten members of visible minorities and
ten Caucasians-and I say Caucasian because this is the
expression used in the Act-in the same room, we would realize
that there were more university graduates among the members
of visible minorities than among the Caucasians. And yet, half
the time, members of visible minorities are limited to jobs that
require little education, pay little and involve manual work.
Who is going to tell me that we, as parliamentarians, should
not be concerned about this injustice? This is the reality. And
then, what about native people? A report was recently tabled in
the House on social problems among the native population. The
rate of suicide is extremely high among native peoples. My
colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, could speak much
more movingly and more expertly than I on this subject.
However, the latest statistics have revealed that, in 1993,-and
we are not talking about 300 B.C.-the rate of unemployment
among native people was still double the national average.
Native people are concentrated in jobs requiring less
knowledge and fewer skills and even more in so-called manual
jobs. You would not be surprised to learn, Madam Speaker, that
the annual employment income of native people is lower. If you
have a job, earn a salary and are a native person you, in all
likelihood, will be earning $10,000 less than your white
counterpart. This is unacceptable, as you will understand.
As regards persons with disabilities, this is perhaps where the
Employment Equity Act has made the least progress. This is
understandable, because integrating a person with a disability
requires employers to make alterations, what the courts have
called reasonable adjustments.
(1125)
It is because of these realities that we must support a bill like
the one tabled by the government. I am not saying that, as the
official opposition, we do not have a few reservations about this
bill. As the committee members know, we put forward a number
of amendments. I would have preferred the employment equity
plan to be developed jointly by the workers' representatives and
the employers, but such is not the case.
What is the Reform Party so worried about in this bill? Why
must we spend our time trying to convince our Reform
colleagues that a law such as the Employment Equity Act is
necessary in Quebec and Canadian society?
Bill C-64 provides for something that we have been
demanding for six years: it will now apply not only to 600,000
private sector workers but also to the Canadian public service.
This means that, at a single stroke, 200,000 additional workers
will enjoy greater protection. I see this as a positive
development, since we must recognize the absurdity of asking
private sector employers to promote employment equity while
exempting the government. We have waited several years for
this amendment.
Another positive point is that there will now be an entity in
charge of enforcing the act. While employment equity was
previously under the jurisdiction of the minister and the human
resources branch, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will
now be responsible for enforcing the act. The commission may
audit reports and establish an employment equity review
tribunal. From now on, when employers do not submit their
reports in time or when compliance officers discover violations,
a quasi-judicial tribunal will have the power to investigate. That
is an achievement, a very positive development, that must be
applauded.
What is also very positive, as I think we pointed out earlier, is
that we used to ask employers to make a quantitative assessment
of their efforts.
12976
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is very much in favour of
this bill, although we do have a few amendments. But I cannot
understand how the Reform Party can take such a small-c
conservative, reactionary and deplorable position on human
rights.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to what my hon. colleague for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve just said and I was shocked by his
criticism of the motion and of the Reform Party for having
moved it.
I was shocked because he said that the Reform Party was
almost taking the stand that you had to be white, male and
without a disability to participate fully in the labour market
without being discriminated against. Upon analysis, we realize
that the separatist option supporter said basically the same
thing; you must be either pro-sovereignty or white and you must
absolutely be an old-stock Quebecer to participate in this
option.
I would like to quote a few statements that were made. Taking
part in a debate in this House on January 27, 1994, the hon.
member for Longueuil clearly stated that multiculturalism ``is
something that has created ghettoes''. In an interview for the
daily newspaper Le Devoir, the Quebec Deputy Premier said that
Quebec would not use public funds to subsidize difference,
stating that his government was against multiculturalism.
(1130)
Minister Louise Beaudoin said that she wanted to live in the
society she wanted and was wondering why she could not live in
the country to her liking rather than to the liking of English
Canadians. ``Canadians want a multicultural society, she said,
but I do not. This would leave the door open to social ghettoes. I
am for integration and against the wearing of the Islamic scarf at
school''.
So far, Bloc Quebecois supporters and the Quebec
government have not shown that they were open to visible
minorities and, I might add, to anyone who does not share their
political views. We will recall how these minority groups were
treated during the public consultation process on the future of
Quebec.
I would like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
to tell me how he envisages their proposed society, their
nation-building project. How can he justify the position taken
by his party and the Quebec government? The fact that
aboriginal people must give in to the Premier currently
responsible for this issue was raised as an example. What
assurances can he give young Quebecers that their future will be
brighter? How can he tell aboriginal people in Quebec that their
future will be brighter? How can he tell visible minorities that,
as he said himself, their future will be brighter? All those
minorities.
So far, no matter how hard they criticize the Reform Party,
they have done no better. They have clearly demonstrated as
much intolerance as the motion before the House this morning.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, I thought you would have
availed yourself of the rule of relevancy. I do not know whether
the term ``stupid'' is unparliamentary, but it spontaneously
comes to mind.
I cannot understand how someone can be as confused, as blind
and as mixed up as the member for Vaudreuil. You should ask
one of the pages to bring him some aspirin, because there is
definitely something wrong with him.
I have been working with the government party for seven
months to improve employment equity, and the member has the
nerve to rise today and speak against the Bloc Quebecois. There
is something wrong with him.
Let me kindly remind him that the issue being debated today
is whether or not the motion tabled by the Reform Party against
the actions of his government is supported by the official
opposition. We made a speech in which we expressed our
concern about the ethnocentric attitude-the member may not
understand that term, but we will send him a dictionary-of
Reform members, and the member finds a way to rise and be
disrespectful towards me.
I will conclude by telling him this: As for sovereignty, if he
wants to debate the issue, I am prepared to do so anytime,
anywhere.
I will also tell him that, if he looks at the way the Parizeau
government, and the previous Quebec governments, particularly
the PQ governments, have treated the English-speaking
minority, to which I think the member fully belongs, he will
realize that he need not worry at all and, also, that we have no
lesson to learn from him, given the respect which we have
always shown towards the English-speaking community in
Quebec.
The members' comments are shameful, unacceptable and
totally irresponsible, in my opinion. I am sure that the Minister
of Human Resources Development and his secretary of state are
outraged by the fact that a government member would rise to
make such irresponsible comparisons.
As for the issue of a better future for sovereignists, the hon.
member has come up with a rather stupid and meaningless
argument, and I would remind him that when Mr. Lévesque held
the referendum in 1980, the federal debt stood at $75 billion.
Consequently, when the member rises in this House, he should
never forget that the debt now stands at $600 billion.
I am not worried about Quebec's future, but I certainly am
concerned about the future of Canadian federalism.
12977
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that we are getting off
topic in a very serious way.
I would like to bring the discussion back on track by saying to
the member that he knows full well that the Reform Party is not
in favour of any particular ethnic group in Canada. We are fully
in favour of equal rights and equal treatment for all Canadians.
One reason the Reform Party opposed the Charlottetown
accord was because of the unequal treatment of people based on
their ethnicity and background. We said that was wrong.
One trend that has been noted over the last little while is that
hearing individual cases of discrimination before the Canadian
Human Rights Commission takes an average of a year and a half.
I agree there is still discrimination and prejudice and we must
fight against it. However the time to hear individual cases has
now expanded to a year and a half. The number of cases is
dropping year by year because people have given up coming
before the commission asking for redress.
I guess my question to the member is this. What does he think
we should ask the human rights commission to stress? Should
we try to get the time period for the commission to hear cases
down from a year and a half to a more reasonable length of time?
Should we be spending more and more of our time and energies
on the group rights cases, some of them six and seven year
cases? I just wonder what he thinks we should do.
Should individuals have quicker access and more resources
committed to their individual cases of discrimination?
Personally I believe that is what should happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, I much appreciate the
member's logical and far-reaching question. He will perhaps
share my point of view when I remind him that the human rights
commissioner appeared before our committee this morning. As
you know, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a
budget of close to $14 million. We learned that the backlog to
which my hon. colleague is referring represents almost 600
cases.
Of course, the ideal situation for any such organization would
be no backlog at all. I agree with my colleague. From what I
understand of the workings of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, a body whose work I follow rather closely, it is
fairly diligent, and the backlog is, in my opinion, in the
acceptable range, not ideal, but acceptable.
Our colleague is right to remind us that, as parliamentarians,
we must never accept a situation where the Canadian Human
Rights Commission simply processes applications; it must also
play a proactive role in developing policy. And it is my
understanding that Commissioner Yalden reiterated this
morning that that was also part of the commission's action plan.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the
member for Halifax.
My colleagues in speaking to Bill C-64 have eloquently
stated the numerous reasons why Canada must strengthen the
Employment Equity Act. The changes are clearly necessary on
moral, social and economic grounds.
I want to oppose this opposition motion and to demonstrate to
the House that employment equity is good for the country. Let
me remind the proposer of the motion that we brought forward
Bill C-64 as progressive legislation that when enacted will
quickly prove to be advantageous to both employers and
employees.
This initiative has been especially designed to improve the
plight of disadvantaged Canadians while at the same time
enhancing the country's economic performance. It strikes the
right balance between the legitimate needs of the designated
groups and the concerns of industry about excessive government
intervention, because that is what equality is all about;
achieving equilibrium.
(1140 )
If the intent of the opposition motion is to satisfy business and
industry concerns, the legislation will actually minimize the
regulatory burden and cost to business by simplifying and
streamlining procedures. All that is within the bill.
The Employment Equity Act that is before the House will not
tip the scales in anyone's favour but instead will serve the best
interests of everyone in the country. Quite simply, employment
equity is good for Canada.
Canadians are proud of Canada's linguistic and multicultural
diversity, so much so that we have enshrined equality in this
country's Constitution. We believe firmly in ensuring the
protection of individuals' rights, especially those most
vulnerable to overt and systemic discrimination.
Report after report, research study after research study, prove
that discrimination is a disturbing fact of life for too many
Canadians, marginalized from the mainstream because of their
race, gender or physical attributes.
I could go on to give the statistics because they disprove the
suggestion that these individuals enjoy preferential treatment
under the existing legislation. I would ask the opposition to
support Bill C-64 because it incorporates constructive
contributions of the many Canadians who appeared before the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of
Disabled Persons
12978
to ensure that they achieve a reasonable balance. Good
employment equity deals with workplace problems in a fair and
even handed way.
Let me address some of the misconceptions that some people
have about Bill C-64. First, we want to be quite clear that the
government has no intention of legislating quotas. In fact the act
specifically states that quotas cannot be imposed.
Under the legislation, a quota is defined as a requirement to
hire or promote a fixed and arbitrary number of persons during a
given period. What the act calls for are numerical goals, goals
based on the availability of qualified people to do a given job.
That is because the philosophy underlying the act is merit, not
tokenism.
Under the provisions of Bill C-64, employers are responsible
for setting goals and timetables to achieve greater equity in the
workplace. The new law would oblige them to make reasonable
efforts to achieve that objective.
The legislation recognizes that employers are in the best
position to develop meaningful and realistic equity targets. The
role of government is to assess whether the employer's
numerical goals constitute substantial progress and whether the
organization is truly making reasonable efforts to fulfil them.
The bill clearly states that if employers make a genuine effort
to achieve greater equality in the workplace they will be found
in compliance. The legislation also stipulates unequivocally
that directions or compliance orders will not cause undue
hardship for an employer, nor will it force firms to hire and
promote unqualified people or create new positions in the
workplace to satisfy numerical goals.
I should point out as well that the creation of employment
equity review tribunals to hear appeals will ensure the interest
and concerns of all parties are properly addressed. Good
employment equity means equality for all.
There is no going back. We must move forward, removing the
barriers to full involvement in Canadian society that have for
too long been insurmountable and both a moral and economic
imperative.
Employment equity is not about instituting new rules and
regulations that will result in so-called reverse discrimination.
Neither is it an impediment to business. Good employment
equity is instead a catalyst for progress.
Workforce diversity allows us to capitalize on the under
utilized talents and skills of more than half the country's
population. That in turn enhances Canadian companies'
competitiveness in the global economy.
The fundamental issue at stake is far more important than the
bottom line on the balance sheet. Only when each Canadian
regardless of his or her country of origin, skin colour, gender or
physical attribute is free to participate fully in the economic,
social and civic life of the nation can we truly say we live in a
just and caring society. Our world is far from ideal but with
progressive legislation like Bill C-64 we can help to reshape
society in a way which will give visible minorities, aboriginal
people, women and persons with disabilities hope for the
present and confidence for the future.
(1145)
Ultimately the employment equity challenge comes down to
you and me, Madam Speaker. We cannot legislate attitudes.
Progress depends on the willingness of each one of us to uphold
the principles of equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
The motion today would almost reverse Bill C-64 and it
should be strongly opposed.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was very interested that it is not a quota when we set a numerical
goal. I am having a little difficulty with that concept.
I came to the House with what I call coffee shop common
sense. If I were to take this into any coffee shop in any town in
my constituency and ask the people the difference between a
numerical goal and a quota, I can imagine the same kind of
stunned look which must be on my face would be on their faces. I
do not understand.
I find it astounding the way the Liberals have taken to
wordsmithing. They say it is not a quota, they do not want
anything to do with quotas but they will have numerical goals. I
am missing something.
An hon. member: You are.
Mr. Abbott: The Liberal members are telling me I am
missing something. However, maybe I could inform the
parliamentary secretary of something that happened to me as
revenue critic.
I was in the Toronto airport going through the customs section
being toured around by a black woman from Jamaica. She was
telling me how concerned she was that the government seemed
to be so set on the idea of creating the problem that she would be
in a different category, someone special.
That is the coffee shop common sense of more than 80 per cent
of Canadians who are saying the government does not know
where it is coming from. The government does not have a clue
what is happening as far as the people in Canada are concerned.
The people in Canada, including the woman who gave me the
tour around the customs section, simply want equal opportunity.
They do not want something legislated in which there are to be
some kind of numerical goals. She does not want numerical
goals.
12979
I report to the parliamentary secretary that this woman said:
``I am a capable person. I have my position because I am a
capable person, not because I am a woman and not because I am
black. I do not want anything to do with numerical quotas or
anything else like that''.
I do not understand. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can
help me and help this wonderful woman who gave me the tour to
understand why a numerical goal is not a quota. Explain that,
please.
Ms. Augustine: Madam Speaker, I rest my case on the
member's statement. I am reminded of a verse I learned when I
was very young: ``There is none so blind as those who will not
see. There is none so deaf as those who will not hear. A man
convinced against his will is of the same opinion still''.
I wonder if there is a will to understand. I wonder if there is a
will to comprehend the whole notion of equity, equality and
diversity, ensuring everyone in society who for various reasons
is taken to the starting line with the word go cannot make the
same progress because of various institutional, systemic and
other things built into the system.
(1150)
As an educator I can define quota and numerical goals to the
member who I think is convinced against his will and will be of
the same opinion.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, with
whom we have had this discussion before.
I still do not know the difference between a numerical goal
and quota. Perhaps the member would like to explain that again.
Ms. Augustine: Madam Speaker, this is 1995. We have done
several things in society to ensure we address equity issues. The
member and his party should have a day or a few hours of work
with someone who would spend some time taking them through
the process. It is a red herring and a waste of House time to be
addressing those two items.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I make
an offer to the Reform Party if it is serious.
In my former profession one of the things I did was gender
sensitivity training, particularly for large organizations. I
explained concepts such as this to St. Francis Xavier University.
I am sure the members for Fraser Valley East and West would be
happy to attend. I would be happy to do this if hon. members
could afford me because my fees were fairly high in those days.
However, we can always negotiate.
It is wonderful to be back after a week's break and share in the
cloud cuckoo land sometimes perpetrated on us by our hon.
friends in the third party. They seem to be saying by this motion
that there is no discrimination in Canadian society except for
specific and regrettable incidents here and there.
To hear them talk, we have reached a state of blissful equality.
They tell us that after a few decades of human rights law any of
the many and obvious differences in representation in the
workplace are now really a matter of personal choice. By their
logic, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with
disabilities like being unemployed more, to the tune of
sometimes more than twice the national average.
They talk about women. There are a lot of us sitting on this
side. We want to make less money than men. Maybe we as
members of Parliament should suggest women members should
not make as much money as men. That might be a good idea.
Women want to make 67 cents for every dollar men make.
Mr. Abbott: In your case they will make an exception.
Ms. Clancy: They certainly would not. They are telling
Canadians they are to blame for whatever fate befalls them in
the labour market unless they can prove a specific act of
discrimination.
When I come to give my seminar to the Reform Party-in the
interest of the Canadian way I might even do it for free-I will
be happy to explain the concept of systemic discrimination,
what it means and how we differentiate between quotas and
numerical goals. We have learned that change does come but it
comes slowly and needs regular reinforcement and constant
support by government and legislation.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has
already said and I can only reinforce, one cannot legislate
attitudes. If members need an example of this, look across the
way.
Many employers have taken their role in employment equity
quite seriously. They have taken a hard look at their practices
and they see they are not fair. They have moved from simply
trying to eliminate blatantly unjust policies to developing ones
that correct problems.
(1155)
People like my hon. colleagues have brought forth in their
idea of jest the question in so far as it relates to women and
employment equity. They ask about men's groups, are there any
men's groups? Yes, there are. It is called western civilization.
There is a long way to go. There are still inequalities that
deserve to be addressed.
I bring these to the attention of the hon. members opposite. I
will focus my remarks on the cold, hard statistical facts that
show we have a problem when it comes to equality. They can
bury their heads in the sand but all they will do is get sand up
their noses.
Let me start with one piece of good news. Members of visible
minorities who graduated from universities and community
colleges in 1990 earned approximately the same average salary
in 1992 as others who graduated that year but they did not fair as
well in the other three measures of disadvantaged. Those
12980
graduates were more likely to be unemployed, had lower
participation rates and were more likely to be concentrated in
lower level occupations such as clerical work.
There is plenty of other evidence that members of visible
minorities face overwhelming difficulties in employment. The
1991 census showed these people tend to be better educated than
the general population. Eighteen per cent reported a university
degree compared with only 11 per cent in the general
population. Again, they tend to have higher unemployment
rates.
The unemployment rate of visible minority university
graduates was 9.4 per cent in that census, whereas in the general
population it was 4.1 per cent. Does that say something to my
friends opposite? Heaven knows.
Among those who were working, visible minority university
graduates were twice as likely to be in low levels, clerical, sales
and service occupations, as non-visible minority men. That
imbalance was reversed when the census looked at employment
in upper levels, middle levels and other management jobs.
Some of my hon. friends might argue it was just the kinds of
programs these people took. Even here the facts provide no
comfort to their narrow view. When we look at the census data
for people with degrees in commerce, business or management
we are looking at people with degrees in tangible skills
regardless of race or colour.
Why were 28 per cent of non-visible minority males with this
kind of useful education in management occupations compared
with only 16 per cent of visible minority members with similar
degrees? Why were the earnings of visible minorities only 60
per cent of what the others made? It is ludicrous for anyone to
stand in the House and suggest all this comes back to bad
choices.
I hope enough facts will show hon. members of the Reform
Party their glib explanations do not work in real life. I remind
them, especially those who want to make inroads in my part of
the world, that in Atlantic Canada we understand the questions
of inequality. If they want to make inroads there perhaps they
had better listen to some of this.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You'll be thrown out in the
next election anyway.
Ms. Clancy: Right, you and whose army? The unemployment
rate for white males with university degrees was just 4.1 per cent
in the 1991 census. Compare that with 7 per cent for university
educated aboriginal peoples and 10.9 per cent for persons with
disabilities with the same academic background.
The situation facing people with disabilities is particularly
bad. They are being hired at a rate that is only one-quarter of the
representation in the Canadian workforce. They experience an
unemployment rate of 18.5 per cent, double the national
average. Is it any wonder their labour force participation rate is
only 60 per cent?
I could go on: the situation facing aboriginal people not just
on isolated reserves but in our cities; the situation facing women
who are disproportionately found in clerical, sales and service
occupations, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister and I in our years as feminists-and proud we are to use
that term-know as the pink collar occupations, the job ghettos.
Stories of these people have been told eloquently already.
During the recent hearings of the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons approximately
60 witnesses came forward to share their experiences and
expectations. They came from many backgrounds but the vast
majority supported this legislation based on their real life
experience, not some theory they posit in their group of white
males getting along just fine and do not want the hoards of those
people knocking at their gates.
Look out, the gates are being knocked on and they are being
knocked on hard.
(1200 )
The committee heard stories of broken dreams. It heard
stories of sincere desires to become full participating members
of society. Witnesses did not appear before the committee to
seek a special deal. Witnesses appeared before that committee to
seek fairness. That is what we as members of Parliament have to
start giving. Those people on the other side of the House need to
learn a little bit about that.
Witnesses did not ask for redress for the wrongs of the past.
They wanted attention to the wrongs that are happening right
now. These are not the kinds of wrongs human rights
commissions can address through individual complaints. These
are systemic discrimination that can only be got at by being
rooted out and dug out through things like the Employment
Equity Act.
The problems have little or nothing to do with evidence of
overt discrimination. They have everything to do with removing
barriers and implementing innovative solutions.
Mr. Speaker, Reformers seem to seize on the odd statistic that
this law has had some impact. They see one improvement in
some indicator and declare that the war on inequality has been
won: strike down the law and send home the troops. Well not so
fast. The battle is not over.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): She is Madam
Speaker. Let us have a little equity here.
Ms. Clancy: I know she is Madam Speaker. She is not going
to get upset with that. We know each other very well.
12981
This law is an effort to address problems that are still very
much with us as one last fact will prove. Max Yalden, the
Canadian human rights chair, recently noted that while white
male Canadians make up just 45 per cent of the workforce, they
account for 55 per cent of all the hirings. I think that is
discriminatory.
I urge my hon. friends to put away their ideological blinders
and listen, really listen to the needs of all Canadians. I reiterate
my offer to help.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am glad the hon. member had a chance to sit down to
collect her thoughts because she obviously did not before she
started to talk.
Would she tell us the difference, a last time, between a
numerical target and a quota? Lyn McLeod, the Liberal leader in
Ontario says there is no difference between a numerical target
and a quota. She says there is no difference and that is why when
she gets to be premier, heaven forbid, she will eliminate
numerical targets. She says they are the same as quotas. That is
what the Liberal leader in Ontario says.
Would the hon. member like to correct her Liberal provincial
colleague or does she agree with her?
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to deal with the
hon. member's question. I have not been following the election
in Ontario perhaps as closely as I should because with the
greatest of respect to my colleagues from Ontario, some of
whom are here in this Chamber now, Ontario is not always the
centre of the universe for those of us from Atlantic Canada.
If Mrs. McLeod has indeed made these comments that is Mrs.
McLeod's outlook. I suggest the hon. member for Fraser Valley
East should discuss that with her.
Mr. Abbott: She is a Liberal, a provincial Liberal.
Ms. Clancy: But I am from Nova Scotia and we do not have a
problem with these questions in Nova Scotia as Premier Savage
could tell the member. We have employment equity on the books
in Nova Scotia and it is working well.
As to the difference between quotas and numerical targets, let
me do this very, very slowly so there will be no difficulty with
comprehension. Let me remind them again that I used to get paid
to do this for groups like theirs but the afflicted need assistance
and I am happy to help.
A quota. Do we understand percentages? A whole can be
turned into 100 per cent. Do we understand that? Let us say we
decided we needed a quota of Reformers to be allowed to go and
see a movie. Let us say there are 100 seats in the movie theatre.
We will give 25 per cent of those seats or 25 seats to the Reform
Party. There will be 25 Reformers there and the other 75 people
will not be Reformers. That is the quota, okay?
On the other hand, consider a target. I understand why you
gentlemen have difficulty with this. The concept is, to a degree,
a bit more intellectual, a bit more inspirational than a hard and
fast, let us cut the block out of the square.
(1205)
The answer is to look at the whole picture and say, there are all
sorts of Reformers who need the education that this movie can
give. Let us look at the number of Reformers that we feel
through their merit could understand what it is we are trying to
teach. Rather than saying Reformers will get 25 seats, it may
well be that only 18 of them will get in because only 18 of them
will have the wherewithal to handle it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
find the attitude just expressed to be absolutely the most
condescending pile of brown smelly stuff. I just find it
absolutely astounding.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would request that the
member rephrase his comment. The time has almost expired.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and to the
House for my indiscretion.
However, I still find it absolutely astounding that the member
has not explained the difference. Now she has added to it, if I
understood her explanation, that she or the government will be
the judge of who is going to be competent and capable of being
able to do this. I do not understand this.
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am awfully glad I have the
opportunity to address this. There are employment equity
commissions, not the government. There are employment equity
officers and there is an entire set up. Read the bill.
I am sure that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East would
not be caught this way because I am sure as the author of the
motion he understands what the bill is doing and what, indeed,
the history of employment equity in his province is.
I am somewhat shocked that my hon. colleague for Kootenay
East would be this way. Again, in closing I reiterate my offer. If
they would like to call my office, I would be happy to set up a
seminar but I think maybe we ought to do it on a pay as you go
basis.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, some of the comments are indeed condescending. I
would like to get back to some of the more practical aspects of
what we are talking about in employment equity today. I would
remind you, Madam Speaker, that I am dividing my time with
my hon. colleague.
I would like to begin by quoting Booker T. Washington who
said: ``I have always been made sad when I have heard members
of any race claiming rights and privileges or certain badges of
distinction on the grounds simply that they were members of
12982
this or that race, regardless of their individual worth or
attainments''. I suppose that says a great deal to what this debate
is all about.
I have always struggled with the employment equity situation
in terms of whether or not it is right or wrong or how it is
applied. I think to a great degree we are trying to accomplish
fairness and equality in the country regardless of race, colour,
creed or religion. I am not entirely satisfied that we can legislate
equality and attitudes or legislate how best to achieve the results
of a fair and caring society.
We get into all kinds of issues with employment equity. I want
to relate two. First, in my past life I happened to be the chief
executive officer of operations for a fairly large organization, a
school district of some 1,500 employees. I often wondered how
we could legislate hiring equity with 1,500 employees. If we
look at the area I come from, there is a very large number of
Indo-Canadian people.
(1210 )
If we were to take that ratio and a ratio of male-female which
is probably around 50:50, I wonder how that kind of equity
would be applied to the organization I ran. Within that
organization a large number of employees were female and I
would suggest that they were white and of younger ages.
To turn around and apply employment equity ratios,
numerical goals or quotas which are one and the same, to that
organization, I do not believe would practically work. The ratio
has to be applied back at the universities, in the bachelor of
education courses taught at university. Then that ratio would
have to be applied back at the high school level, to the graduates
for acceptance into university.
Mr. Strahl: That is what they do in the states.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): As my colleague says, that
is what they do in some states, and it does not work practically.
What has to be done when bringing people into organizations
like the one I managed is to bring them in as they were on the
basis of the career they chose a long time ago, based on their
ability to pass courses, on their personal desire to teach young
people and so on and so forth. To legislate employment equity in
an organization like that would be near impossible. It just does
not work.
People from all over the world reside in my community. Many
businesses and companies I have visited even recently have
almost exclusively been owned and operated by people from
Laos, Cambodia and other countries. We could look at that and
say if we want to enforce or legislate numerical goals or quotas,
it could actually work in the reverse. There are some people
missing out of here from the community so let us go back and
change all of the ratios. That is not practical.
I do note from the community I live in that I do not see the bias
we are talking about here from the Liberal ranks. I do not see the
necessity of having that quota, that numerical goal. I am sure
people in my community would be quite opposed to the thought
that might happen.
A number of times we have heard Liberal members talk about
numerical goals. They say that numerical goals in employment
equity are not quotas, that they are something else. We just pick
a number and say this many people have to be hired.
If we look at something like the supply management system in
this country, we should say that there are no quotas in supply
management, just numerical goals. I do not think the folks
across the way really know what the heck they are talking about
when they talk about numerical goals and quotas. They are
legislating something here that the rest of Canada is going to
have to live with for a long time. They are making a very grave
mistake.
We only have to look as far as the official bilingualism
program to see what they are trying to legislate. They tried to
legislate a country into an attitude that everything shall be
equal. In fact, they would hire a number of investigators to
ensure that the official bilingualism policy would be fulfilled
and put into place. If not, there would be penalties.
That is exactly what the Liberals are talking about here. They
are talking about a large number of people within a department
to make darn good and sure that employment equity is put in
place. If it is not put in place, maybe they should be given a fine.
My experience is that we cannot legislate attitudes. One
cannot legislate that which people will not do. What we have to
do in this country is make fair and reasonable application to all
people. We must have a country where all people are equal,
regardless of race, colour, creed or religion. That is what has to
be done and we have to have it up here. We do not legislate or
mandate it.
(1215)
I am reminded of two young fellows who came into my office
not long ago holding a piece of paper. It was an application for a
scholarship from a very large company in British Columbia. It
had to do with scholarships for pre-apprentice electricians.
What these young fellows were concerned about was that it was
only available to aboriginal people, visible minorities, the
special needy and women. I had to explain to them that my
feeling was the company was trying to increase its employment
equity. They did not understand that. They truly did not. They
thought things were based on abilities, skills, work experience
and so on.
12983
Once the bill goes through and we have more employment
equity rules and regulations, I am not sure how we can explain
that to them. I sincerely hope the Liberal government will have
an answer because the people do not understand. It is not as easy
as chalking it off, as the Liberals would say, to a bunch of dumb
Reformers. That is not the case. We should get off that kind of
rhetoric. I think Liberals have some explaining to do as to how
the legislation will really work.
There are a lot of examples in society in which governments
get too far involved in what they think is right and they legislate
it, which is exactly where this government is going. I often
comment in the House about the arrogance of a party much
resembling the arrogance of the Conservative Party when it held
a large majority. I would caution the government very closely
that it not get carried away with its arrogance in its legislation. It
should look at the employment equity legislation and consider
that all Canadians today consider themselves equal, regardless
of race, colour, creed or religion. Do not try to legislate it. Put it
in your hearts and in your minds.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
noted in my colleague's speech that he made the comment that it
is impossible to legislate attitude. I found it rather instructive
that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was
on her feet speaking today she made exactly the same comment:
it is impossible to legislate attitude.
I cannot help but wonder why it is that the Liberals have
difficulty understanding that they cannot legislate attitude when
the parliamentary secretary says it and it is obviously agreed to
by my colleague from Fraser Valley West. In fact, they are
getting involved in social engineering to try to redress a
situation by way of legislation when 80 per cent of the people in
the coffee shops across Canada say they do not want any part of
it.
The problem I am having is when I raised the question with
members opposite, asking them to explain why the leader of the
Ontario Liberal Party says that goals are the same thing as
quotas, I have not yet had one explanation from the other side as
to why there seems to be such a discrepancy in this never-never
land that these people in Ottawa are in, bringing forward
legislation that 80 per cent of Canadians do not want. They do
not seem to understand.
(1220 )
I wonder if my colleague could help me understand why the
Liberals in Ottawa seem to be so grossly out of touch with
reality and certainly out of touch with the attitude of the
majority of Canadians on this issue.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, this was
not a loaded question at all.
I think most people who come here from all regions of the
country understand that there is a certain amount of being out of
touch with Canadian reality in Ottawa. I think it prevails where
there is a majority government, which is less and less in touch
with the people. The reason for that is that for five years those in
power do not have to work as hard as the party in opposition to
get things accomplished. They come into the House and say
``this is what Canadians want, because they elected us, and this
is what we are darned well going to give them''. There is a
certain amount of hypocrisy and arrogance in what we see in the
legislation passing through this House.
I do not think for a moment that what these folks are trying to
push off onto the rest of Canada, and which we are going to have
to live with for the rest of our lives or until they are removed
from office, is representative of what many people in this
country are seeing. What we have here again is an attempt to
legislate what people will be given not necessarily what people
want.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will be very brief. I listened to what the hon. member had to say
and, like the rest of us, was also invited by the member for
Fraser Valley East to cross the Rockies and visit the rest of the
country. I must tell him that I have already done so.
I would like to return the favour and invite the Reform
member to visit my fair province, Quebec. I found the hon.
member's statement a little irresponsible.
[English]
We are speaking of employment equity. The member refers to
employment equity and brings biculturalism and bilingualism
into the debate.
I would like to put him on the defensive. The proof is in
Quebec, where being bilingual gives more job opportunities.
With the emerging economy today and with North American
free trade there are now schools in Quebec offering Spanish as a
third or fourth language. So how can he bring that into the debate
and say that he is against bilingualism when he is for
employment equity and opportunities for all people, especially
the youth of today? It is ironic.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, the
member totally misunderstood what I was talking about. The
fact is I mentioned the bilingualism issue not as an issue that fits
in with employment equity but as an example of how the
government challenges the strength of the Canadian fabric by
issuing law to its people when it gets a majority government.
They have totally misunderstood what I was talking about.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but the time
has more than expired.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, employment equity is discriminatory. It is also
12984
illegal. Subsection 12(3) of the Public Service Employment Act
states: ``It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender
and colour''.
Employment equity seeks to institutionalize what we seek to
avoid. We seek to avoid discrimination, but instead it brings it
right into the workplace. It tells a minority group: ``You cannot
compete on the basis of merit. Therefore, we in the government
are going to create opportunities for you to advance on the basis
of your demographics and not on the basis of merit.'' It makes an
issue of gender and it makes an issue of race and geographic
location when none ought to exist. In fact when we speak to
minority groups we find it is an insult to them.
(1225)
The purpose we have in this country is to give minority groups
and disadvantaged groups the opportunity to become the best
they can become. This legislation tries to enable them to have a
fair share of jobs, a fair share based on numbers.
We have had this discussion in the House. The government
says it is in favour of numerical goals, not quotas. Quotas and
numerical goals are synonymous. There is no difference. As I
said before, it is discriminatory. All we need to do is look at the
fine institution of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to see
that white males need not apply.
What we want to have in this country is equal opportunity. We
must have a country in which everybody has an equal chance to
become the best they can be, to employ the talents, the drive and
the initiative they have in their hearts to do whatever they can.
Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has enabled
us to do that.
If someone chooses not to do this of their own will, if they
choose not to take the opportunities that are provided for them,
then it is not the government's role to do this through other
means. That is where we have a significant departure in logic
and understanding. We feel it is not the government's role to go
out and push people when they do not have the initiative, push
people to get skills for something they choose not to do. We are
in favour of providing everyone in this country with the
opportunity to get those skills.
Many people came to this country as immigrants, including
myself. We came to get away from countries where preferential
policies existed. The idea of preferential treatment, being
treated unequally, has occurred in many countries. People have
left that to come to our fair shores. In fact the idea of treating
people equally on the basis of merit is something that is new and
it is something we should all try to strive for.
Some view employment equity as a way of decreasing
discrimination but in fact the opposite is true. Employment
equity increases discrimination causes animosities, plays up
differences and creates resentment.
Madam Speaker, imagine if you will if you were going to
apply for a job and people said that you would not get this job on
the basis of your merit, but because you are a woman or a
minority group or an aboriginal person you are going to get this
job. Imagine what that would say to you and your feelings about
your own credibility. It is, as I said before, an insult.
I would just like to say to minority groups-and I am a
mixture of many different minority groups-that we cannot
legislate against people's prejudices. If people call you
derogatory names, that is their problem, not yours. However, we
must ensure that those prejudices do not interfere with a
person's ability to get a job and function in society.
We must look at real life examples too with employment
equity. Why is this government pushing employment equity
when California, a state of numerous ethnic groups, ethnically
heterogeneous as it can be, is throwing it out? They have found it
is costly and ineffective.
We have 11 programs in this country that are sanctioned by
the Treasury Board. They are called special measures
initiatives. Between 1985 and 1988 they cost between $11
million and $15 million per year. In 1992 the pass rate for
women was 63 per cent and visible minorities 79 per cent. This
year the pass rate is 30 per cent for women and 52 per cent for
minorities. It is a failure and it is costly. Why do we continue to
pursue this endeavour which has proven not to work?
I have heard this government claim it is against
discrimination and it is for justice and caring. Employment
equity does not do this. It does the exact opposite. It also does
that at the expense of what should be the primary guiding role in
getting a job, and that is merit. It also does this at the expense of
minority groups, as I said before, and it is insulting to them.
When we speak to the rank and file of Canadians who are of
minority groups in this country, they all say that they do not
want employment equity. They want to be treated fairly, equally
and without discrimination.
(1230)
The leaders of minority groups often take a different role, but
their role is the role of politics not necessarily the role of
fairness. I would listen to the silent minority not to the verbose
leaders of some groups who do not necessarily represent the
people they are supposed to represent.
Let us look at the facts. As government members have said,
there is no difference between minority groups and
non-minority groups. We need to work toward everybody with
the same qualifications being paid the same amount of money
for doing the same job. These are the rules we have in the
country and
12985
these are the rules we need to strongly support. The Reform
Party is vehemently in favour of these rules.
There are differences between employment statistics and the
types of jobs of various minority groups. As I asked before, is
this the fault of discrimination or is this the fault of differences
in qualifications and societal determinants? We have laws and
regulations with respect to qualifications in Canada. A
qualification from another country may not be recognized in this
country in the same way. That is not unfair. A doctorate or a
bachelor of science or a trade from another country may not
have the same merit as the same program here regardless of
whether or not it involves a minority group. We ought to keep
that in mind.
I would like to give an example of drive. Recently I was on an
aboriginal reserve wracked with a lot of tragedies: high suicide
rate, high unemployment rate and depression. However, when
these people were asked to do the simplest things for themselves
they continually put forth that they wanted us to do it for them. I
asked them to teach their own children some of their history and
culture which they were capable of doing, but they chose not to
do it. They wanted somebody else to do it for them. By doing
things for themselves and by taking the initiative they could
build pride and self-respect, which would go a long way to
decreasing the societal duress in many of these groups.
We in the Reform Party are vehemently opposed to
discrimination. We believe in creating a strong, level playing
field for all people regardless of their colour, race or gender. We
want to create laws, have laws and enforce laws that are
anti-discriminatory. Discrimination is a cancer within our midst
that needs to be stepped on wherever it is found. We need to
build bridges between people. We need to cherish our
differences. We need to learn from each other. We are very lucky
in Canada to have over 165 different ethnic groups. What a joy
and a privilege for all of us to learn from other people and other
cultures in a safe environment.
I am glad we are a lot like the United States. I am glad we are
not like many of the other countries in the world that do not
enjoy the freedoms we have. However we fight against
employment equity because it flies in the face of fairness and
equality. It separates people rather than bring them together.
Canada is a model at bringing people together. I ask the
government to reconsider its role and views on employment
equity and to reconsider the idea that it is not up to government
to elevate people to a standard they are not capable of achieving
or choosing to do themselves. It is the role of the government to
enable people to have an equal playing field free of
discrimination.
We do not live in a perfect society, but we must continue to
work toward a fair and equitable society with peace and fairness
for all.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make after listening to
the member.
I found it very ironic, if I may say so, because often we hear
from the Reform Party how it compares Canada to the United
States. In the member's presentation he compared us to
California and the United States. Not too long ago the leader of
the Reform Party visited Mr. Gingrich of the United States, at
which point he said: ``We don't do things the way you do in the
United States''. Yet all of a sudden they want to compare us to
California.
I want to go beyond that point because it seems to me they
want to suck and blow at the same time.
(1235 )
I refer to an article about Reform in the House that states:
``Reformers cast themselves as the official opposition but they
have a few flaws''. I believe the flaws keep flopping back and
forth.
In my private life I came from the employment industry. I
would like to give a specific example of some problems that had
to be overcome. A major retailer wanted to hire a computer
operator. In that area there were rotating shifts, sometimes
eight-hour shifts, sometimes twelve-hour shifts three days
consecutively or five days a week.
The employer indicated to my firm that he was adamant he did
not want to hire a female simply because there were rotating
shifts. Somehow or some way we convinced the employer to hire
a female. I am proud to say today, six years down the road, the
female is still with the company. She has been promoted three
times and is doing an excellent job. What would have happened
if the placement agency decided to listen to the employer and be
swayed by him that because she was a female she could not work
shift work?
I am proud to say the legislation will open avenues, allowing
people to go ahead, move forward and compete for jobs equally.
I believe employers will hire based on merit, not just on the fact
that someone is oriental, black, male or female.
I encourage the party across the way to stop posturing and
being intellectually dishonest with the people of Canada.
Reformers cannot have it both ways. They either compare us to
the United States or they do not. They cannot keep
flip-flopping.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker,
employment equity is about hiring people on the basis of colour,
gender and other demographic characteristics.
Who cares if one is female or male, black or white, brown or
polka-dotted? We do not. We only want to make sure that when
12986
people go for jobs they are treated on the basis of merit. That is
all that counts in getting a job. That is all we care about other
than providing and ensuring there are laws against
discrimination.
Regarding what I said about the United States, California has
employment equity laws. We do not want them. I point out to the
hon. member that we should learn from the mistake they made in
the United States. They are trying to rectify it. We should learn
from their enforcement of employment equity in California that
it did not work. Let us learn from them. We should show
Americans that we are different from them and better than them
by not partaking in it.
Our goals are the same. In some ways the goals of the
government and the Reform Party with respect to the
overarching theory are the same. We do not want discrimination.
We are vehemently opposed to discrimination on any ground.
The flaw in the government is that employment equity
engenders discrimination. By its very nature it is saying that one
group of people cannot compete on the basis of merit and should
be elevated over another group. That is discrimination against
the other group. That is unfair. We cannot right the wrongs of
historical injustice by creating discriminatory laws now. We
cannot right the wrongs of the past by tipping the scales in
favour or against a group.
We must create a level playing field, treat people on the basis
of merit and have anti-discriminatory laws to create a country of
which we can all be proud.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the Reform Party put forward today the
following motion:
That this House deplore the government's employment equity policy as
unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular, intrusive, discriminatory and
harmful to designated and non-designated groups; that this House recognize
the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based
solely on merit rather than on gender and race; and that discriminatory
employment practices be more vigorously pursued on an individual case by
case basis.
I come from a family farm in rural Saskatchewan. Whenever
work was available it did not matter much what one's gender or
colour was. My sister was involved in the work on the farm. It
did not matter what task was at hand. She was able to do it as
ably as anyone else on the farm. We are proud of her abilities to
tackle any task at hand.
(1240)
It is with that approach we should be looking at employment
opportunities. We should be looking at the skills of the
applicants rather than at the colour of their skin, their gender or
some other distinguishing mark or blemish, if one would be so
bold as to use that word.
It gives me pleasure today to speak on the issue of
employment equity or what I would rather call preferential
hiring or affirmative action, a concept that is failing around the
world wherever it has been tried. The specific area I should like
to address is the government's definition of equality. Equality
has been loosely defined as equality of numerical representation
in the workforce.
For example, if 5 per cent of our available workforce is made
up of visible minorities each employer's workforce should
reflect the 5 per cent. In order for the government to move
toward equality of numerical representation, it must obtain an
accurate statistical base showing the representation of
designated groups.
However, accuracy of statistical base depends on
self-identification and here we have a huge problem. The
government has stressed that self-identification is the backbone
of the employment equity program. There are a number of
problems, however, with the self-identification process.
The Stentor group, testifying before the human rights
committee, stated that employee data collected by means of the
self-identification process was unreliable. Many employees are
reluctant to participate in the self-identification process
because often there is a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of fellow
workers. Most individuals would rather have their promotions
and benefits based on merit than on gender or race.
I will use an example that is very close to home. The Clerk of
the House of Commons appeared before the committee on April
27 and stated that a voluntary self-identification survey was
sent to 1,700 House of Commons employees. Shockingly, only
23 per cent of the employees returned the survey. Of that number
less than 50 identified themselves as belonging to a designated
group. From these numbers it would be next to impossible to
implement an accurate employment equity plan.
It does not work. It does not work on the Hill. How will it work
across the country? Yet the Liberals are committed to
employment equity. They think they can legislate it. They are
absolutely wrong.
Difficulties also arise in determining who should belong to
the designated groups. For instance, should a person of mixed
parentage be counted as a visible minority? Why? Why not?
Should a third generation visible minority Canadian be thought
of as disadvantaged as a new citizen from the third world? Why?
Why not? These questions need to be addressed by the
government.
There are also problems in defining what constitutes a
disability. If I were to wear glasses I would be considered
disabled. It is ridiculous. This list goes on and on. It shows how
complicated and interwoven the problems surrounding the
whole employment equity affirmative action programs become.
Yet the Liberals in their red book are committed to this terrible
policy, this impossibility.
Another concern is with regard to intrusive behaviour in the
identification process to know who are the minorities. To get the
statistics surveys have to be done, which means employers and
employees have to comply. Yet the right of individuals to refuse
12987
self-identification is an important privacy right. The boundaries
of consent to self-identify are already being blurred.
In March 1995 the Department of National Defence issued a
diversity questionnaire to all employees. The first section was
compulsory, requiring personal information such as name and
address. It was pretty basic stuff. The second self-identification
section was voluntary. By requiring partial information the
department obtained knowledge of all those who refused to
self-identify. It is a serious problem. It is an invasion of a
person's privacy.
They already know now who refuses to identify themselves as
being in a visible minority, a group that might qualify for special
assistance under any kind of equity employment program. It is
intrusive. It is wrong. It is a violation of some basic rights as
Canadians. Some members of designated groups can now be
approached by the national defence managers and be pressured
to respond or asked to agree to be identified under the authority
of section 17(3) of the proposed Liberal legislation, Bill C-64,
where only those employees who agree to be identified are to be
counted.
(1245)
Employers can use a variety of informal methods and pressure
to persuade employees to give consent for self-identification.
To make any part of a self-identification questionnaire
compulsive is coercive. The use of personal information for
anything other than department wide statistics should be
unacceptable. Any that are made necessary by requirement are
inherently wrong and are another weakness of employment
equity.
The government is saying that if a person is a visible minority
there is a greater likelihood that person will be disadvantaged. I
do not accept that. I think that is wrong. Why should certain
visible minority groups which earn some of the top incomes in
the country qualify for employment action programs? It does not
make sense when others who are not visible minorities are
passed over.
I would like to give the House an example of how ludicrous
the whole concept of employment equity, gender equity or race
based equity can become. A law program at a university in the
province of Ontario undertook what it called an equal
opportunity approach to education. Essentially it was trying to
get a certain number of visible minorities into the law
profession, which is an admirable goal. However, what it did
was not so admirable. On the law school application was a
question whether the applicant was a visible minority. I am not
too certain why being a visible minority would make someone a
better candidate for law school. I do not understand why that
would be the case.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. The students in the law
school are segregated during exams between those who are
visible minorities and those who are not visible minorities.
Those individuals who are visible minorities are given eight
hours to write exams, while those who are not visible minorities
are given four hours. In addition, visible minorities are given
special access to tutors that is not available to other students. To
make matters worse, those who were not visible minorities were
kept in the dark about the university's policies.
The type of approach taken by the university is doing visible
minorities a disservice. Can you imagine getting a law degree
from that university and it becoming common knowledge that
you had twice the time to write the exam or that you were given
special tutoring? I am sure the demand for those students would
be half as great as for those who followed the regular course.
Employment equity or equal opportunity, when it becomes
based on gender, race or some other distinguishing mark of a
visible minority, it is ludicrous and ridiculous.
It is insulting to visible minorities that the only reason they
are in law school or they are hired is because of their skin colour,
their gender or any reason other than their ability and their
merit. Instead they should be given the message that they are
qualified to be there, that they have skills, intellect and the
determination to get the job done, whether it be to get a law
degree or to get a job.
In conclusion, I would like to talk a bit about something which
is important to me, results. In the last election a bunch of
nonsense went around that somehow the Reform Party was male
dominated and that the party was only interested in the male
segment of the Canadian population. Actually the statistics do
not bear that out.
It is very interesting to find out that of our candidates, the
female candidates had a higher success ratio than the male
candidates. We had no equity program. We did not demand that
half of our candidates be female. Maybe if we had we would
have had twice as many members here.
We left the choice of the selection of candidates up to the local
constituencies, which looked for the best person for the job.
They did not look at the colour of their skin or their gender. They
looked at their ability to represent their constituents. They
looked at their ability to come to this place to try to change it.
We were more successful at electing women candidates than we
were male candidates. A lot of Canadians do not know that
because they have been given misinformation by the Liberals
and by others who have a vested interest in the whole issue.
(1250 )
As employers, let us choose people based on merit. As
government, let us promote a policy that will let people succeed
because they deserve to, not because they are pampered on some
unreasonable grounds that forms the basis for employment
equity programs.
12988
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, if ever there was a better example of government doing
all the wrong things for all the right reasons in employment
equity, I do not know of it. If ever there was an example of
government making a bad decision worse in its attempt to make
it better, I do not know of one.
Today in our universities students who take economics classes
study the example of rent control, for instance, to learn how
government can make a problem worse by adding what appears
to be simple tools to make it better. With rent control
government tried to make housing more affordable by imposing
rent increase restrictions on those nasty landlords that, in
government's opinion, wanted to take the shirts off the backs of
their tenants. Unfortunately, as history and economics have
shown again and again, it simply does not work.
Instead of rent control creating more affordable housing it
creates less. By imposing rent restrictions the government takes
the incentive away from developers to build new homes, thus
limiting the number of homes on the market and ensuring that
the under class never gets affordable housing.
Are there no benefits from rent control? Sure there are. The
wealthy and the upper middle class people who have secured an
apartment are guaranteed artificially low prices for their homes.
Who benefits? The middle and upper classes. Who pays?
Business and lower classes. It is a prime example of what
happens when government creates a system to help one sector of
society at the expense of another. It does not work. The market
takes over and makes its own decisions that more often than not
fly in the face of the good intentions of government.
I am convinced that a couple of decades from now students
studying economics will no longer be examining rent control
examples. They will be studying employment equity because
employment equity as well as being fundamentally unjust,
fundamentally unfair and fundamentally discriminatory, does
not work. That is what the classes will be centred on.
Some will benefit: principally lawyers, the middle class
minorities and women who are artificially moved ahead in the
market by employment equity. But not the lower classes, not
immigrants, not those the program is supposed to help. By
placing artificial restrictions on hiring practices, by placing
quotas on institutions that hire people, government limits the
productivity of those organizations. Government makes them
less productive and less productive organizations hire less
people and fire more.
The first to be let go will always be those with the fewest
skills, those who have spent the least time in the market or part
time workers. Those people are disproportionately members of
the very group that employment equity is supposed to benefit.
It is a classic example of government not working. It is a
classic lesson for government. However this government, like
its ideological cousins in the NDP, do not get it. It has been too
blinded by rhetoric to understand reality and too influenced by
special interests.
Employment equity is a failure. It does not do what it is
intended to do. While attempting through employment equity to
cure some alleged wrongs of the past, as a society we have sold
our souls. We have made a pact with the devil. We have
abandoned the principles of fairness, justice and equality.
Liberals used to love George Orwell's Animal Farm. They
would cite the slogan: ``All are created equal but some are more
equal than others'' with a bit of glee, thinking this was a
criticism of the politics of the so-called establishment and that
they were above such satire. Well, no more. Employment equity
is the embodiment of the slogan: ``All are equal but some are
more equal than others''.
That slogan does not make sense of course. It is illogical and
so is employment equity. However it does not stop special
interests from demanding more employment equity. I say
special interests because there is no question that special
interests are at work in the debate. When there is no empirical
evidence of a white male cabal actively discriminating against
more than half of the population and when the majority of
Canadians oppose employment equity, what can we conclude
except that special interests once again have the ear of the party
across the way? Only special interests could force the promotion
of a policy that is so illogical and so unfair.
(1255)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is fond of citing
statistics, with which we agree, saying that immigrants to
Canada outperform native born Canadians in the workforce. The
minister attempts to take credit for the fact that immigrants tend
to be very hard working and self-reliant.
At the same time employment equity in the public service
discriminates against men and white Canadians and
discriminates in favour of minorities, many of whom are
immigrants. Even though immigrants are outperforming native
born Canadians, native born Canadians are punished by
employment equity because immigrants are presumed to be
disadvantaged.
No other bit of data shows the absolute folly of employment
equity like the data on performance of immigrants. Look at the
performance in the economy of recently arrived immigrants
from Asia. These immigrants are new to the country. They often
face difficulties with language. They are typecast as ethnic
minorities. Yet they do better than the white males that are
alleged to be discriminating against them and thereby are
allowed to receive an undue and unfair benefit from employ-
12989
ment equity programs. Does this make sense? Is this justifiable
by anyone with a grain of common sense? Of course not.
Special interests are tickled about the state of affairs because
special interests do not care about justice. They do not care
about facts. They do not care about the national interest. They
care only about their interests and they have the ear of the
government.
The Reform Party has faced labelling. It has had to shield
itself against rhetorical attacks unlike any ever faced by a major
political party in Canada. Among those attacks have been the cry
of racism, despite the fact that the Reform Party is the only party
that has on its books a totally colour blind immigration policy.
We want Canada to accept immigrants on the basis of their
ability to contribute to Canada and fill needs in the workforce.
Imagine what would happen if the Reform Party changed that
colour blind immigration policy. Imagine if ethnic fairness was
our goal. Here is what would happen. The majority of
immigrants coming to Canada are typecast as visible minorities.
Using the logic of fans of employment equity that could only
mean that there is a systematic institutional discrimination
against non-visible minorities in the immigration system.
Again using the illogic of the employment equity program it
would be fair, proper and just to establish quotas for
immigration to Canada of more white Europeans. Imagine the
backlash that would occur if that program were instituted,
despite the fact that this hypothetical scenario would be based
entirely on the exact same logic that the proponents of
employment equity use.
Discrimination occurs in many quarters. It occurs against
young men who have good grades but still cannot get into
university or get a scholarship. It occurs in increased ethnic and
racial awareness as government forces everyone to declare
themselves a member of a racial group instead of just being
Canadian. It occurs when there is job loss due to ridiculous
demands placed on industries that do business with the
government. It occurs as the stigma attached to minorities and
women who are called ``EE hires''. The list goes on.
I urge the members of the House to think carefully. Do not toe
the party line. Use your heads and think about the effect of this
misguided policy. Think about the human costs. Think about the
non-existent benefits. Then support our motion. Restore
fairness, and stop discrimination of all kinds.
(1300 )
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to
speak to the Reform Party's motion which I believe to be
predicated on a lot of misinformation, half truths and generally
misdirected with a great deal of pomposity. Some rather
unfortunate ethnocentric views are being perpetrated on the
basis of what is a very logical piece of legislation with very
reasonable goals being set by the government to deal with
overwhelming inequities that already exist.
I welcome this opportunity to clear up the confusion
surrounding Bill C-64 created by some ill informed members of
the opposition. I am anxious to explain how this made in Canada
legislation will respond to the country's unique workplace needs
to ensure fairness for all Canadians.
I have been told repeatedly by Canadians that
communications and education are essential to the success of
employment equity. It is within this context that I frame my
comments today. I believe it is critical for Canadians to
understand what Bill C-64 will and will not do. They should be
fully aware that Canada is charting its own course with this
progressive piece of legislation.
The suggestion has been made by some members of the
Reform Party that the United States experience with affirmative
action proves workplace equality is unworkable. It is not fair to
compare apples with oranges. This is Canada and that is the
United States.
In outlining the many merits of Canada's approach to
employment equity I intend to demonstrate how, despite
misleading comments to the contrary, in Canada we got the
legislation right. Let me outline the key differences between the
American's affirmative action approach and Canada's
employment equity legislation.
With all due respect for our neighbours, the U.S. approach is
characterized by a confusing and sometimes contradictory
multitude of federal, state and municipal laws, policies and
programs.
We also have to understand there is a great deal of competition
for jobs. The pressure is great with two million jobs being lost
annually in the U.S. As an example of how this pressure is
generated in the U.S., look at the global picture and see where
the pressure points are.
An article in the Utne Reader, the May-June 1995 issue,
states: ``In the 1950s, 33 per cent of U.S. workers were
employed in manufacturing. Today less than 17 per cent of the
workforce is engaged in blue collar work. Management
consultant Peter Drucker estimates that employment in
manufacturing is going to continue dropping to less than 12 per
cent of the workforce in the next decade. Although the number
of blue collar workers continues to decline, manufacturing
productivity is soaring''.
Another factor to consider is that changes have also been
dramatic in the wholesale and retail sectors. There are pressures
there and competitions for jobs. There are a lot of pressures on
businesses, on government and on individuals. For instance,
typical of the trend of retail giant Sears Roebuck, Sears
eliminated a staggering 50,000 jobs from its merchandising
division in 1993, reducing employment by 14 per cent.
12990
Intelligent machines is also another issue invading
professional disciplines, encroaching on education and the arts,
long considered immune to the pressure of mechanization. A
robot that will perform hip replacement surgery is being
developed in California. Some firms now use computerized
hiring systems to screen job applications. Not only are we
competing with other humans, we are competing with robotics,
new technologies and the mechanization of the workplace.
What do we do? Do we outlaw new and intelligent machines
that will help to improve the economy and provide efficiency
and effectiveness? With all of our discontent and malcontent we
could devise laws and legislation that would discriminate
against those and eliminate them, as is being suggested here.
(1305)
Another interesting factor to consider because of the
pressures being generated is that from 1983 to 1993 banks
eliminated in the States 179,000 human tellers, 30 per cent of its
workforce with automated teller machines.
This is a whole phenomenon far too complicated. I do not
believe one can win the argument as the members of the
opposition are proposing by taking a single, narrow example of
how a university sets up a program or a course and use that to
build a case against employment equity. That is very narrow and
unjustified. It does not have much validity.
This profusion of legislation we talk about in the States gives
rights, protections and remedies to different groups.
Understandably this has created problems. Critics point to
abuses and growing disenchantment with quotas in the U.S.
which have led federal legislators to re-examine affirmative
action.
By contrast, Canada has a streamlined legislative framework.
Bill C-64 creates a single approach to employment equity at the
federal level with clear responsibilities and duties assigned to
employers and government agencies. With a few exceptions the
approach to employment equity and the groups covered are
essentially the same in most jurisdictions with mandatory
employment equity in Canada.
Another crucial distinction is the role of the courts.
Employment equity in Canada is proactive in nature. The
legislation focuses on negotiated solutions arrived at through
co-operative employer-employee relations. It does not require
prior presumption of discrimination.
Consequently the Employment Equity Act creates an efficient
and cost effective framework that minimizes the role of courts.
We have a federal contractors program which a lot of regulated
businesses participate in. It has become a state of mind. It is
good business for those people to have women, visible
minorities and disabled people working for them.
I have attended ceremonies at which we award federal
contractors' awards. I have done that over the year and it has
been very much applauded by the participants. They set an
example many federally regulated businesses want to
participate in. That includes universities as well as a variety of
different private sector businesses.
The affirmative action program south of the border is rooted
in executive order and civil rights law. Its objective is to
eliminate discrimination against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, colour, religion, sex or national
origin. The U.S. approach is characterized by court ordered
quotas, preferential treatment to minority owned companies for
government contracts and tax incentives to encourage
ownership by minority populations.
The American system is also adversarial and litigious, doing
little to advance harmony at the work site. It is frequently
criticized as a slow and expensive way of achieving equality in
the workforce.
Under the Canadian approach to employment equity,
employers set their own numerical targets, often reached
through consultation with workers and their unions. Bill C-64
specifically prohibits the use of quotas and there are certainly no
provisions for preferential treatment to minority owned
companies.
It is also good news that the Reform Party elected quite a few
women. It might not have been a bad idea to have elected more
there. That is an aside and I am sure the Reform member across
the way will agree with that.
Merit is still paramount. A vicious rumour is being
perpetrated that meritorious applicants, meritorious individuals
meritorious successful candidates under employment equity are
being maligned as not capable, as having been selected because
they are disabled, women or of a visible minority. That is not so.
This legislation has merit as its foundation. That remains
paramount.
(1310)
The intent of the Employment Equity Act is not to provide
preferential treatment; it is designed to ensure equal treatment
of all qualified work ready Canadians regardless of race,
physical attributes or gender. It is about removing not erecting
barriers to employment. It is about creating equity not
inequality and not preferential treatment. It is about improving a
system so downtrodden with inequity.
If the Reform Party is willing to do the research it will know
the employment figures year after year have on the bottom of the
list the disabled, women, aboriginal people and visible
minorities. The Reform Party can find a few examples where
that is not the case but the government does not build good
policy and good legislation on a few examples. The exception is
not the rule. That is not the way good policy is developed. That
is not the way democracy works best.
12991
It is about removing inequities not erecting barriers to
employment. Canada is very fortunate that its legal meaning
of equality is unlike that of the U.S. Ours is based on a
constitutional guarantee of equality far broader than the U.S.
equivalent. In Canada every individual has the right to equality
before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of
the law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
section 15(2) recognizes special consideration and the
accommodation of differences is sometimes necessary in
achieving true equality.
Special treatment is not a departure from equality, it is
essential in achieving it. Employment equity has come about
because of the overwhelming inequities in the labour market, in
all fields of employment. That is what it is based on.
It is unique to Canada. The U.S. constitution has no similar
provision. In the United States there is a constitutional right to
equal protection of the law only. Historically it has been
interpreted by U.S. courts to require identical treatment, thus
the development of colour blind and sex blind laws.
Members of Parliament who have participated in committees
have learned by that valuable process. I have learned through the
constitutional process that same treatment does not necessarily
express equality. That is a simplistic view and a view which
should have gone out with the dark ages. We are into futuristic
and very straightforward issues and views about equality which
apply to all Canadians.
Canada's approach to equality is progressive and far sighted.
Equality means recognizing differences not just identical
treatment. This has led to a greater partnership among groups
pursuing fair access to employment opportunities and has
resulted in far greater success. The wisdom of the Canadian
strategy is proven in our progress. The record shows that while
Canadians still have some concentrations of
under-representation, advances have been significant under the
existing Employment Equity Act and will only increase with the
improvements provided in Bill C-64.
That speaks volumes about the Canadian approach. We are not
interested in overloading the courts with employment equity
challenges. We are looking for equal employment opportunities
for Canadian women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and
persons with disabilities.
(1315 )
We want to ensure fairness for all Canadians by assuring
everyone has equal access to a job because we all know
Canadians will benefit when we do. The best long term
investment we can make as a country is in the creation of a more
productive economy that fully capitalizes on the wealth of
knowledge and skills of all members of society.
I can assure members of this House and reassure all Canadians
that this government has no intention of repealing or weakening
its employment equity legislation. We will continue to work
diligently in the proud tradition of this great nation to assure the
dignity of each and every member of our communities and our
country. Canadians expect no less. With this in mind, I urge all
members of this House to vote against the Reform Party's
motion.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as I listened to this member I kept reflecting back on
the reason the Reform Party came into the House and why we
were elected as a new party with 52 members to represent the
people in our ridings across the west.
One of the reasons was the existence of so much top down
government with the message that it would tell people in the
ridings across the country what government thought was best for
them. That has been the attitude of government in the past and
that is the attitude of the present Liberal government.
I know the majority of people in my riding do not want
employment equity. They feel it is intrusive, abusive,
discriminatory and certainly that it reflects the negative side of
government in the past.
Since the member is speaking on behalf of many of her
constituents, how many of her constituents did she poll on this
particular matter? How much is the program going to cost the
taxpayer? Did she tell that to her constituents?
Another question came up when I was reviewing some of the
act. A section deals with organizations or departments that
employ 100 people or more. The employment equity aspect does
not involve those below 100 employees. Why would it not
include everyone in this whole picture? If this Employment
Equity Act is so important, why is everyone not included in it?
Those are the reasons many of us on the Reform side are going
to vote against any possible amendments that come up on C-64.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, through the political
process, I have gone through a metamorphosis from a neophyte
to a second term member of Parliament now. More than that, I
am a human being who literally sits with my constituents. In the
north we have very small confines. I live with my constituents. I
cannot disappear into a city as one might in cities like Ottawa
and Calgary. I live with my constituents.
We did have a poll and it was a great poll. It was won poll by
poll. I did have a poll and I have the utmost confidence. I won
my election in a landslide in 1988. When I won my election
employment equity was part of the red book. In 1993 I won
every single poll in my riding, advanced polls, special polls,
every poll. Those are the polls that count.
12992
I do not believe we can have a 1-900 democracy or 1-900
governments. That is not the way to run this country. That is
being a chicken because they cannot face up to it and make the
decisions people elected them to make. They elected me to make
the tough decisions. I am here and I will make them with this
government.
(1320)
If the people are afraid in that city, I do believe the member
has made it intrusive. He has talked about this legislation as
intrusive, as abusive and as discriminatory as Reformers have
done with almost every other piece of legislation that has come
forward that people have supported.
If the people of Canada did not like employment equity they
would not have voted for us. They read about it in the red book in
1993 and we were elected with a full majority. It was clear and it
gets clearer by the day what we intend to do.
We are making the federal contractors program and this
employment equity legislation as broad, as fair and as all
inclusive as possible. It is not intrusive, discriminatory or
abusive. It is anything but that. It will be inclusive. It will create
for once in the 125 year history of this country the kind of equity
that is needed so that all members in this House can participate,
all members of this country can participate. For God's sake,
even Reform Party members can participate. That is how
inclusive it is.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I listened closely to the minister's eloquent remarks
about equity and fairness, even in her response a few minutes
ago about allowing all members to be treated equally in this
House.
New Democrats govern 52 per cent of the population
provincially right now in Canada. We treat everyone equally, as
fairly as we possibly can and much fairer than other
governments of the Liberal stripe provincially.
Given her years of talk about employment equity and given
her comments and concerns respecting equality and fairness,
would the minister support treating members of the New
Democratic Party caucus in this House with equity and fairness
as we have treated the Liberals in Saskatchewan's legislature?
Would she do this by giving them at least a role in question
period, full membership on committees, a front row seat for our
leader and those sorts of courtesies which do not cost anyone
any money but do provide a sense of equality and fairness in this
House of Commons?
As the minister knows precedents have been set in previous
legislatures that show very clearly that New Democrats have
exercised fairness and equality. We just do not talk about it. All I
have heard so far from the government is talk about equality and
fairness. Where does the minister stand in providing a fair and
equitable role for the New Democrats in the House of
Commons?
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, it is most
unfortunate. I expect much more from the New Democratic
Party members in dealing with this very important piece of
legislation than to piggyback their own personal political party
agendas on this really important piece of legislation. I am
amazed that the hon. member would not only mix in his own
personal political party agenda but also would drag in the whole
issue of the provinces and the particular arrangements they
have.
I expect support from the New Democrats. After all the years
of singing the praises of employment equity, I expect the
member to support us on this bill. That is what New Democrats
say they believe. He should lay aside his own personal agenda
and negotiate that in the procedures that are available to him
through the Speaker's chambers.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I must interrupt you, as
your time is up.
Before giving the floor to the next person, I would like to
inform the House that Mrs. Gagnon, the member for Québec, has
given her time slot to the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
and the Status of Women.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first off, I would like to thank my colleague for Québec
for the courtesy. I am convinced that she is a supporter of
employment equity.
The motion introduced today by our colleague for Fraser
Valley East once again shows the Reform Party's intention to
eliminate employment parity and to backtrack regarding
Canada's achievements in the area of equality of rights over
almost 40 years.
(1325)
We know that in 1986, the former government passed the
current law on employment equity. I congratulate it for this
accomplishment. But it was the Liberal government preceding
that government which established the principles and set down
the cornerstones of employment equity.
In 1986, these principles were even entrenched in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides for
the creation of laws, programs and activities to improve the
situation of disadvantaged people. We built a framework of
principles reflecting our vision of society and its future and
established values for our society.
This is most of all evident in section 15 of the charter, which
discusses non-discrimination regarding employment. The
charter also covers the issue of the equality of women in sections
25, 26 and 27, and the issue of multiculturalism in section 28.
12993
I must say that Canadian values are very well expressed in our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that section 15 covers all
rights and gives us the potential to promote those who are
disadvantaged in our society.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to make the business case. There is not only the fairness and
equality case which is first and foremost as a Canadian value,
but there is also the business case for employment equity.
As much as it is statistically justifiable, socially desirable and
morally the right thing to do, it is also a fundamental necessity
in today's business world. Even a cursory examination of
current market conditions makes it abundantly clear that
Canadian companies must fully capitalize on this country's
greatest resource, its rich and diverse workforce, if they are to
remain competitive in an increasingly global economy.
Hon. members of this House need not take it from me nor from
this side of the House. Perhaps Reform members and their
supporters might take a lesson from the people they admire so
much, the independent business people and the large
corporations. Take a lesson from what they have to say about the
importance of diversity and gender equity to their business and
their business values and to ours as well.
Throughout my remarks I will highlight comments of some of
this country's most progressive business leaders, people who
have found out for themselves that employment equity is not
just a matter of common sense but also one of dollars and cents.
Private sector firms including Canadian National, Canadian
Occidental Petroleum, Bank of Montreal, Hydro Québec, et
cetera, see equity as an asset and have seized it as a tool for
improving their companies' performances. They have
discovered diversity is a value added. We all know how
important value added is in the competitive global economy we
have to face.
Let me quote just one proponent of employment equity,
Bernard Isautier, chief executive officer of Canadian Oxy:
In the global village we must learn to respect, appreciate, understand and
value differences, in terms of race, ethnic groups, gender, culture and
language. Diversity is a source of competitive advantage. If a company is to
be successful in today's business environment, it must develop policies and
practices in step with an increasingly diverse workforce.
I would like to briefly outline some of the key business
considerations in the employment equity question which
includes the fundamental principle of merit. Of course we are
going to hire someone based on equivalent capacity and ability
to deliver the job and do the task. We may have to train some
people but there is certainly a merit principle as well as the
ethnocultural reality of Canada's people and the equality of men
and women.
(1330)
Let us look at this. There is the matter of the changing face of
the marketplace. People reporting ethnic origins other than
Canadian, British or French now account for 40 per cent of the
country's population. That number is expected to climb to 50 per
cent within the decade. With these people come new markets and
demands for new products or services which Canadian
companies are finding profitable to satisfy. It is no longer just
white rice and white bread, it is the whole range of wheat, grains
and cereals that we can enjoy.
Petro-Canada, as one example, saw a 15 per cent
improvement in gasoline sales in Vancouver when it started
offering services in Mandarin as well as English, as did the Bank
of Montreal in the delivery of its services.
Not only are there burgeoning business opportunities at home,
but global trade is opening doors to markets with the potential
for unprecedented growth abroad. International business, I
would remind everyone in the House, is multicultural,
multilingual and multiracial. Canada is a global village. That is
who we are.
We are reflective of the four corners of the world. Those four
corners have been here for a long time. The people are
competent and capable and have the potential to meet the
challenges of the new global economy. Opportunity knocks and
Canada's diverse people are a natural competitive advantage.
They may be seen now as a hidden advantage, but let us bring
that out into the light and look at it in the clear light of fiscal
reality. We cannot afford to exclude anyone nor should we wish
to.
The Conference Board of Canada, with the assistance of the
multicultural programs which I manage, recently released an
18-month study called ``Dimensions of Diversity in Canadian
Business'' which documented the financial gains to be had from
using our diverse workforce to access untapped markets both
within Canada and around the world. The study's author,
Christine Taylor, noted that the single most significant barrier to
change is the belief that diversity is not a business issue.
If there is still any doubt among my colleagues they will be
interested to learn that the report from the Conference Board of
Canada notes that the gross domestic product rates in Latin
America, China and the Pacific rim range from 6 per cent to 12
per cent annually. The purchasing power in these countries is
enormous and holds tremendous potential for Canadian
business. Let us not forget the business task force which the
Prime Minister led to these parts of the world. These fast
developing regions require vast investments in infrastructure, in
public systems and capital. It takes special people to make such
transactions happen.
More and more employers are finding that ethnocultural
diversity, including visible minorities, with insider knowledge
and contacts within those countries are instrumental in
penetrating these new lucrative markets. These people are not
being hired because of legislative requirements or simply out of
a
12994
sense of duty or altruism. Progressive businesses are choosing
these qualified employees for the value they add to the company.
Unfortunately too many Canadians do not know about our
secret power, the hidden asset of Canada. It is about time they
did. If enough Canadian companies recognized this new reality
there would not be any people looking for jobs. Too many are
still bound by the straitjacket of stereotypes. That is why we
need employment equity. It will bring better equality and justice
and it will also meet the business needs of the community.
I hope Reform members are listening so they might decide to
have an open mind. Never mind doing their polling, maybe they
should think and talk to their constituents.
(1335 )
If critics are truly concerned about the welfare of corporate
Canada, surely they cannot be opposed to employment equity
measures that will enhance their ability to compete. As the
conference board study notes: ``Competing to win in the global
economy requires an ability to attract, retain, motivate and
develop high potential employees of both genders from a variety
of cultural and ethnic backgrounds''.
Having an employment equity plan in place eliminates the
barriers that may prevent employers from harnessing the full
potential of the workforce. I have had the pleasure of working on
the Conference Board of Canada study with Prem Benymadhu, a
really incredible gentleman who is the vice-president of human
resources research. He said that much more than being a nice
thing to do it really is essential for Canada. It would be a
mistake, however, to assume that increased access to domestic
and international markets is the only business advantage of
employment equity.
Companies are learning that recruiting, promoting and
retaining people who are representative of the Canadian
population helps them provide better and more responsive client
service. When we walk into a store and see ourselves reflected
on the screen as part of the picture, when we see ourselves in the
ads, whether we are brown, yellow, white or whatever our skin
shade is, we feel that we are included, not excluded, and have a
sense of belonging. We feel welcome and know we have our
place within the peoples of Canada.
Companies report that there is an increase in market share of
38 per cent when they have changed their advertising and
direction. By the way, I refer members to the Advertising
Council of Canada study which indicated a tremendous increase
in sales and customers when this principle and concept is
applied.
The conference board survey showed one-half of the
respondents discovered it was necessary to tailor their customer
service practices to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse
customer base. Responding to those changing needs is
apparently very profitable. There was a very interesting
explanation given to us by the Bank of Montreal on how it
targeted its various bank branches to the population it was
serving.
Therefore, it is apparently very profitable. The majority of
companies reported an increase in market share. Seventy-eight
per cent showed significant increases in customer feedback and
38 per cent indicated that their revenues had increased. I am sure
everyone would love to give a business report like that.
Employment equity proves to be equally beneficial inside
organizations too. Among the many advantages are improved
workplace morale, higher retention rates and greater
productivity. In fact, many managers find that women's work
style, which focuses on team work, collaboration and open
communications and mutual support, is especially well suited to
the communication demands of the workplace in the
information age.
Enlightened employers recognize that employment equity
gives them improved access to a much larger pool of well
informed and qualified personnel, which raises some very
pragmatic issues around the whole question of an aging
workforce.
Despite current unemployment conditions, demographic
projections make it clear that Canada will soon be searching for
qualified workers. Within a decade we will start to experience a
severe skills shortage because of retiring baby boomers. That
will also present other issues with respect to the aging of our
population. They are all important social policy and program
issues.
Given these population trends, given the decreasing birth rate
within Canada, all but one-third of the new entrants to the
workforce by the year 2000 will be members of the Employment
Equity Act designated groups: women, visible minorities,
aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities. I would
suggest that be carefully considered when members are looking
at public policy. Maybe when they come out with their revision
to what could be a good red book, they would find why and
when.
(1340 )
Our country will need every one of these people and the time
to prepare for the transition is now. As the report prepared by the
Royal Bank of Canada stated, with a labour shortage predicted
in the future and a more diverse population, it is very important
to get off the mark quickly before the labour crunch hits.
That is why the vast majority of employers, such as the
Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, federally
regulated employers in the transportation and communication
industries and other stakeholders affected by Bill C-64, the
12995
employment equity legislation, which as members know the
committee has finished reviewing, recognize the need for
legislation in employment equity.
It makes good business sense. If one looks at the whole issue
employment equity it is designated to promote the optimal use
of our rich human resources. Although we have contract
compliance, good business practice would not need and does not
need it because it is something that you would want to do to
improve your access to the market, to invite people into your
stores, to place before them merchandise that they like, that they
want and that they will buy.
The questions we are looking at and the bill concerning
employment equity are intended to act as a stimulus to our
national economy while correcting the injustice of
discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.
When practicality for business companies is coupled with
dignity for individuals everyone wins. I remind the House that
for all the business benefits of employment equity-they are
obvious and I have enunciated a number of them-it is in the
interest of fairness and equality, in the interest of the value
system that we have put before the Canadian people. It is a
system that is inclusive and not exclusive, that is neither abusive
nor unfair. It is one that looks at all people in Canada and says:
``You are welcome. There is a place for you with your skills,
with your knowledge, with your competence and with your
abilities''. It is not smart business to be exclusive.
I remember studying section 15 of the Canadian Constitution.
It was delayed three years after the acceptance of the charter of
rights and freedoms. That study took a year out of our lives. We
examined section 15, the non-discriminatory section, and
suggested the changes that were to come before the House in
terms of formal laws as different from policies.
Employment equity was one. It had to do as well with the
whole question of where the federal government had
jurisdiction so that we could have contract compliance. Many of
the provinces do the same thing.
Anyone who thinks that it discriminates against what is called
the traditional Canadian had better look out there and see who is
the Canadian. It is all of us in all of our beauty and in all of our
differences.
[Translation]
We planted the roots of the employment equity policy 20
years ago. Since then, the successive governments have made an
effort to promote it. It would seem that the only people who
question the employment equity policy are our Reform
colleagues.
I recommend that all members of the House vote against the
motion and that they support and speak out regarding the
importance of including every single person in this country, in
all of our society's employment policies and to show what it
means to be Canadian.
[English]
Diversity is the beauty of this country. This is a global village.
We are reflective of the four corners of the world. If members
come into the constituency of almost anyone who lives in an
urban, semi-urban or metropolitan area they will note those
differences. They will note the diversity and will recognize the
importance of being inclusive of the ethnocultural and visible
diversity as well as gender equity.
(1345 )
I urge all my colleagues to endorse the necessary amendment
so that we can get on with the business of building a better
Canada, an inclusive Canada, one that looks like all of us in this
House.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would argue with the hon. member who just finished
speaking that a diverse workforce I agree is good for business. A
workforce where one hires the best person one can hire is good
business.
I certainly do not need a lecture about diversity in the
workforce. As I mentioned earlier today, in British Columbia we
understand and appreciate the contributions of people of all
different ethnic backgrounds. If one does not and they are a
business person they will soon be out of business in the lower
mainland. My goodness, we are very cosmopolitan out there and
very proud of it.
The problem of course is not that we do not appreciate
diversity. The thing is we do not appreciate employment equity
legislation. By the turn of the century, as the member
mentioned, 85 per cent of job applicants will be from the
so-called designated groups. Eighty-five per cent will be
coming from those four groups. By all means, any business that
refuses to hire from this 85 per cent, which is going to form part
of the new economy in the next decade, is not going to get
necessarily the best people for the jobs. That will mean their
business will be less competitive. If they are systemically
discriminatory I hope they go out of business because they
should obviously be hiring people based on their merit not their
ethnicity.
If we have a situation, for example, in Toronto where
statistically-this is just statistically, because there are always
variations-people of Portuguese background have a lower
standard of living, fewer employment opportunities and even a
lower graduation rate from high school, which is a fact in
Toronto from the Toronto school board, do you design
government programs based on need? In this case they are not a
visible minority and do not qualify under the employment equity
program-
Mrs. Finestone: You do not even know what it means,
employment equity.
12996
Mr. Strahl: Do you design programs based on need or on
ethnicity?
From our point of view, we say people should be helped out
based on need as individuals. There are some visible minorities,
for example, in our program who would receive much help.
There are others who would receive no help. It should be based
on demonstrated need.
According to StatsCan, Japanese Canadians by ethnicity have
the highest per capita income in Canada. Do you design
programs to help someone from that background or do you
design them based on need? We said government assistance
programs should be designed based on need regardless of
ethnicity, background or gender. We should not have programs
and quotas.
I know the member does not like to admit it, but it was
interesting during the leaders debate here in Ontario that Lyn
McLeod, the Liberal leader for Ontario, mentioned that
numerical targets are just quotas. That is why she is going to do
away with numerical targets if a Liberal government is elected
in Ontario. In that case she agrees with the Reform Party and
most Canadians who say that numerical targets are not to be
appreciated and will be eliminated under a Liberal government
in Ontario.
The federal Liberals happen to agree with the provincial NDP
on this one. The philosophical trend is interesting.
In any event, does one design government programs based on
need or based on ethnicity?
(1350 )
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker, I just wish the members
opposite would stop and think about what they are saying. First,
everyone who has chosen to come to Canada to become a citizen
or who is a landed immigrant is a Canadian. One does not
hyphenate a Portugese Canadian versus a Japanese Canadian.
That is totally antithetical to the Canadian point of view.
Second, the reason for the targets, the goals, no matter what
we want to call it, is because we have seen there has been uneven
hiring, a systemic racism out there in terms of hiring practices.
There needed to be some kind of mechanism to enable people to
understand that after decades and decades of
anti-discrimination laws nothing was moving. We certainly
needed to have some form of mechanism so that those who were
perpetually outside of the job stream could be included. It was
not because they were low income versus high income. There
are people who are low income who can end up being very high
income earners. So do not give me that business. All one needs is
an opportunity in life. If one is not given an opportunity to be
hired because of the colour of one's skin then there is a reason
why one is not getting a chance.
This kind of program and policy is to ensure that every
Canadian, regardless of colour, creed, race, religion, language,
sex or handicap, gets an opportunity.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would say that all along
the issue has been structural unemployment, systemic
discrimination, the vital need for changes to the way one uses
our unemployment insurance and the way programs are put into
place, which have demonstrated that all people have not had the
same kinds of opportunity. The world has changed dramatically.
We need new jobs and new kinds of skills.
It may be the children of the very wealthy who may not get the
jobs or the PhD who cannot find the opportunity, although the
one who has the PhD has a much better chance of getting a job
than those who are under-educated.
We have a target population because the system does not work
without it. If the member finds that antithetical to his views that
is just fine. The people of my riding and the people we represent
realize we need a public policy to give people a helping hand. It
is not gratuitous. It is good, constructive public policy.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I find the hon. member's comments very enlightening
of the Liberals' position. It reminds me of what took place in
British Columbia just before and during the Charlottetown
accord. At that time the NDP government in British Columbia
decided in its wisdom to promote the idea of Senate reform
based on gender equality. It decided that if we were going to
reform the Senate and make it elected, it would legislate an
equal number of men and women senators. However it very
quickly found out the people of British Columbia did not
support that type of action.
Interestingly enough, one of the sitting women senators was
the most outspoken against that. She found it personally
demeaning that a government would consider legislating-
Ms. Clancy: Name her.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): If you must know,
it was Senator Pat Carney. She said she could get elected to the
Senate of Canada on her own merits not because some
government took it upon itself to legislate equality.
(1355 )
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to make the point to the hon. member opposite that
the Senate in this country is appointed not elected.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): I am well aware the
Senate in this country is appointed because this government
continues to fill the other place with its appointments. We are
very well aware it is appointed.
12997
The senator was trying to say that if the Charlottetown accord
had gone ahead with a provision for an elected Senate, that she
would have ran at that time and felt she had a good opportunity
to be elected. However, it would not have been because she was a
woman but because she was good at her job and would have run
on that basis.
I ask the hon. minister to actually cite some statistics and
some examples of where the people of Canada support this type
of reverse discrimination.
Mrs. Finestone: I suggest you read the standing committee
report. You will find-
The Speaker: Order. The hon. secretary must always address
the Chair. I get lonesome sometimes.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon.
colleague that of those who appeared before the standing
committee, 90 per cent supported employment equity.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the hon. member
that Senator Pat Carney is a very staunch supporter of qualified
women. At no time would anyone on this side or anyone who
believes in fairness and equity suggest that factors other than
quality and merit be taken into consideration. I would like to tell
the hon. member that there are as many, if not more, competent,
qualified women as there are men.
Last but not least, if someone has reasonable job
qualifications, competence and equivalency, there is no
discrimination in the ultimate selection. In short, with
numerical goals a key ingredient of employment equity
legislation is aimed at fighting rather than facilitating unjust
discrimination and lack of representation.
Women make up 52 per cent of the population. I guarantee we
can find competence among that-
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
12997
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a member
from Nova Scotia I rise today to congratulate the Nova Scotia
government for demonstrating vision and leadership with its
solution for the redevelopment of Route 104.
In these times the Nova Scotia solution to highway 104 offers
the safest redevelopment possible and safety is the most
important issue here.
The $29 million federal-provincial investment will kickstart
a $110 million private and public partnering project that will
create over 800 jobs and ensure that this dangerous stretch of
highway is developed in only two years, contrasting sharply
with the public sector only alternative which would see
redevelopment over seven to ten years.
The safety of Nova Scotians cannot be put on hold for 10
years. It is irresponsible to even suggest it can be. However, this
is exactly what the western based Reform Party is calling for and
so are the Tories, Brian Mulroney's friends in the other place. It
is a shame these out of touch parties are willing to play old style
politics with the safety of those travelling the Nova Scotia
highway system. Nova Scotians want immediate action. They
deserve nothing less.
The province should be congratulated on its innovative
solution, which offers the quickest, safest and most cost
effective redevelopment possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it is National
Access Awareness Week.
One of the things that this event permits us to do is to take
stock of the headway made over the past few years in the area of
accessibility for handicapped persons. In fact, fortunately, our
society has recently taken strides towards the social and
professional integration of handicapped persons. There remain,
however, many more physical obstacles and wide-spread
prejudices to overcome.
We must go beyond merely examining our consciences and
actually ensure that concrete measures will be taken to permit
these people to take their rightful places in our community,
especially at this time when the federal government has
committed itself to reviewing the Employment Equity Act.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the legislative measures proposed in Bill C-68 imply
that gun owners are a risk to both themselves and to others and
thereby a threat to public safety.
The Minister of Justice is unable or unwilling to provide
empirical evidence to prove that gun owners present a greater
risk to themselves, to the people they live with or to their
neighbours.
The Library of Parliament has been in contact with the
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and the Insur-
12998
ance Bureau of Canada and has learned that insurance
companies do not ask their applicants if they own a gun because
they are not an identifiable risk group.
If gun ownership represented any risk or liability, insurance
companies would charge gun owners a higher premium for life,
health, disability, liability and property insurance. They do not.
How can the justice minister say gun owners are an
identifiable risk when insurance companies disagree? Unlike
the minister who makes his arguments based solely on emotion,
insurance companies make their decisions based on empirical
evidence because they make their living assessing real risk.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was pleased to attend the
opening ceremonies of the York Region Senior Games being
held in Whitchurch-Stouffville, the federal riding I have the
privilege to represent.
The games are held annually in the York region and provide
senior citizens with an opportunity to participate in numerous
sporting events. From badminton and bowling to golf, tennis,
swimming and even triathlon, seniors from across the region
engage in extremely competitive matches. The winners of
events at the games will go on to compete internationally in their
respective sports.
These games, jointly sponsored by the federal new horizons
program and the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and
Recreation, provide many seniors with an outlet for physical
fitness as well as the opportunity to establish and maintain
friendships with their extended community.
I wish each and every competitor success and, more
important, a good time over the course of the senior games.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I extend congratulations to
the Fredericton Chamber of Commerce on winning the 1995
Chairman's Award. This award is given to the Atlantic
province's chamber of the year.
The award was in recognition for the Fredericton chamber's
business development initiatives in 1994-95. The Fredericton
Chamber of Commerce contributes annually to the Greater
Fredericton Economic Development Corporation. In addition to
financial support, the chamber has a member on the board.
Further, the chamber has played a leading role in the
commercialization initiative at the Fredericton airport and has
contributed generally to the growth of Fredericton's information
based economy.
Congratulations to past president Stuart Blair, present
president Bill Macmakin and Krista Hamilton and her staff. It is
thanks to these people and to these kinds of initiatives that my
riding continues to find success in attracting new businesses and
providing leadership in the growing new economy.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Nova Scotia
government for showing strong leadership in the area of tourism
development across the province and in particular on Cape
Breton Island.
For the past 37 years the people of Cape Breton have been
patiently waiting for the development of an infrastructure
system worthy of its international tourist destinations, including
the beautiful Cabot Trail, salmon fishing on the Margaree and
Canada's best kept secret, the magnificent Fortress of
Louisbourg.
Tourism is an $834 million industry accounting for over
35,000 jobs across Nova Scotia. On Cape Breton Island this
translates into almost 7,000 jobs and $177 million in revenues.
The potential for growth here is almost unlimited as new
markets are sought.
For a region that has been devastated by a downturn in the
fisheries and a 24 per cent unemployment rate, the completion
of the Fleur-de-lis highway is more than just about a tourist
trail. It is the completion of a transportation system that offers
hope, survival and vital long term economic growth to coastal
communities which would otherwise disappear. It is a road that
paves the way to a self-sufficient and proud future.
As the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso I say
congratulations to the Nova Scotia government. I invite all
Canadians to come to Cape Breton this summer for a vacation to
remember for a lifetime.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a
constituent, Elaine Strawbridge.
Presently Ms. Strawbridge is participating with 50 fellow
Canadians in Bike L.A., a fundraising bike tour to support the
Habitat for Humanity Organization.
The 4,000-kilometre bike trek began in Winnipeg on May 20
and is travelling through six states for 30 days before reaching
12999
the California destination. Local churches along the route are
providing meals and lodging to the cyclists.
Through her participation, Ms. Strawbridge hopes to raise
$25,000 for the local Habitat for Humanity Organization. This
non-profit organization builds affordable housing for low
income families through volunteer work.
(1405)
I commend Ms. Strawbridge and all Bike L.A. participants for
their commitment to helping those less fortunate. On behalf of
all Canadians I wish Ms. Strawbridge a safe and successful trip.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive
Technologies issued a report on November 30, 1993, after four
years of deliberations which cost the taxpayers of Canada and
Quebec over $28 million.
Despite the promises made by the Minister of Justice and the
Minister of Health, the government has yet to determine how it
will follow up on this report. The government is waffling, is
killing time. Is it waiting for the end of the world to come or is it
waiting for brighter days? Hard to say.
In the meantime, the flourishing embryo business is turning a
brisker and brisker trade and genetic manipulation is being put
to commercial uses. And once this trade has assumed such
proportions that it will be increasingly difficult, maybe even
impossible, to control the situation, the government will be
faced with the loathsome task of justifying its inaction.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
refugee system does not work. The Immigration and Refugee
Board is bankrupt and the government does not have what it
takes to fix the problem. However, we do the Reform Party has
produced a paper on refugee settlement which contains 13
proposals that would, if enacted, bring genuine refugees to
Canada while halting widespread abuse of the system by
economic migrants and the immigration industry.
We call for increased co-operation with the UN to bring in
more refugees from abroad, tightened airline security, a safe
third country list from which people could not make claims,
restricted availability of some social services for those who are
found not to be genuine refugees, especially legal aid, the
dismantling of the IRB and the restoration of accountability in
the system, among others. These proposals would bring sense
back to the refugee system, would save hundreds of millions of
dollars and would protect those most in need.
I sincerely hope the government has the sense to study and
implement these reasonable, common sense proposals. Let us
make the system work for everybody's interests, not just special
interests.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to congratulate the Kamloops Blazers hockey team on winning
the 1995 Memorial Cup and on the extraordinary
accomplishment of winning three out of the last four Memorial
Cup championships.
For the Blazers it was a Memorial Cup matinee masterpiece
before 5,500 enthusiastic fans at Riverside Coliseum in
Kamloops. The western hockey league champion Blazers
crushed the Ontario pennant winning Detroit Junior Red Wings
in an 8 to 2 upset as the Brandon Wheat Kings and the Hull
Olympics looked on.
Congratulations to the team players, coach Don Hay, manager
Bob Brown and all the others who worked so hard to make the
Kamloops Blazers the number one hockey club in Canada.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
more than 75 years Optimists have found ways to help young
people feel better about themselves, learn, feel happy and build
solid foundations of character.
Youngsters have gained self-confidence through the
oratorical contest, learned about their attributes through Youth
Appreciation Week and experienced the power of leadership
through their Optimist youth clubs. Recently Optimists have
learned that brick by brick they can help young people to build
on themselves through positive mentoring and tutoring
programs.
On June 3, 1995 Optimist International is celebrating
Optimists in Action Day around the world. The theme this year
is: ``Our Children, Our Future''. The Optimist Club of Brampton
will be holding an event to mark action day which involves other
Optimist clubs in the area, youth clubs and other organizations.
I ask all members of the House to join me in wishing
organizers and participants in the Optimist Club of Brampton's
Action Day all the best.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Senate and the House of Commons
Joint Standing Committee on the Library of Parliament, I
congratulate Mayor Philip Owen of Vancouver and Kyle R.
Mitchell, chair of the Vancouver Public Library Board, for the
eight years of planning and community effort which have
13000
culminated in architect Moshie Safdie's imaginative,
post-modern Vancouver Public Library.
It is a true symbol of the intellectual vivacity and creativity of
Vancouver today.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for CMHC recently
announced a one year extension of the affordability and choice
today program or ACT.
The purpose of the program is to identify, demonstrate and
promote changes in planning and building regulations that could
help to improve housing affordability, quality and choice and to
stimulate regulatory innovations in municipalities across
Canada. The extension means that grants for at least 10 more
projects will be provided.
Affordable housing is very important to the constituents of
Bramalea-Gore-Malton. I commend the minister and CMHC
for their actions and initiatives in this area. Anything the
government can do to help promote the building of affordable
housing is a step in the right direction.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
Ontario election Mike Harris and the Conservatives are
claiming they can balance the province's budget while
massively reducing revenues through a reckless 30 per cent, or
is it now 35 per cent, income tax cut.
In 1993 Mike Harris said he could balance the books in three
years. In 1994 he said in four years. Now he says it will take until
2001. That is six years and six budgets. Mike Harris cannot add.
The Tory plan contains billions of dollars of errors, omissions
and exaggerations. There are billions not accounted for.
Ontarians must know what Mike Harris is afraid to tell them,
that he will gut the province's social programs to find the extra
money. Mike Harris says: ``Vote for me now and I will tell you
later what I am going to do to social programs''. That is being
dishonest.
Lyn McLeod will balance the budget within her government's
mandate. Liberals are prepared to be accountable to voters if
they fail instead of putting tough decisions off into the future.
Only the Ontario Liberals have a realistic plan to balance the
province's budget without devastating social programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Charles Castonguay, mathematician and University of Ottawa
professor, denounces the shameful and pernicious use to which
the federal government is putting the latest UN world report on
human development by claiming that Canada ranks number one
in the world in this area.
The government bases its claim on Canada's rank on the
human development index. However, the purpose of this index
is to measure the gains that developing countries are making on
developed countries. A close look at these statistics reveals that
Canada's unemployment rate is the fourth highest in the world
and that our youth unemployment rate ranks eighth among all
countries on the index.
Canada also ranks eighth for the income spread between its
richest and poorest citizens. The propaganda campaign of the
Prime Minister and his government shows that they are
stretching reality to hide the fact that they have given up on the
social front.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
next couple of weeks members across the way face a critical test
that will characterize the very essence of their stay in Ottawa.
They must decide if they are here to serve their constituents or
they are here to serve their party masters.
The Liberal red book promised free votes. The 35th
Parliament has yet to have one government bill open to a free
vote.
In the next few weeks votes on bills as diverse as the
sentencing bill, the employment equity bill and the gun
registration bill are all due. Free votes are clearly called. Liberal
members have been told their party comes first. History
however tells another tale and I urge Liberal MPs to vote with
their constituents.
The next few weeks will be interesting indeed. The very
definition of parliamentary democracy is at stake. Hopefully the
voice of the majority of Canadians will be the one that Liberal
members listen to.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is National Access Awareness Week. It was
13001
my privilege yesterday to join with Canadians from
communities across the country at the national kick-off
ceremony.
This week gives individuals with disabilities the opportunity
to celebrate their many accomplishments and allows for the
setting of new goals for improving access.
With learning as the focus of this year's celebration, we are
reminded that learning is a lifelong process. It is important to
ensure that all learning opportunities are available to everyone,
including Canadians with disabilities.
We have much to learn from each other. Canada cannot afford
to ignore the tremendous talents, abilities and skills that persons
with disabilities can contribute to the workplace, to schools and
to communities.
As members of Parliament let us commit to removing all
physical and attitudinal barriers faced by persons with
disabilities to ensure their full participation in all aspects of
community life.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and recognize the
contributions my friend Pete McGarvey has made to Canada and
Canadians for many years.
I have known Pete McGarvey for the last 21 years and he has
had an immense influence on my life since first meeting him in
1974. I commend the city of Orillia for inducting him into
Orillia's Hall of Fame.
Pete McGarvey was chosen for his continuing service in the
community, for being the driving force behind the restoration of
the Leacock home and for his accomplishments as a successful
writer and broadcaster.
I am confident the citizens of Orillia will agree with me, Mr.
McGarvey deserves this honour and much more.
I call on the House to join with me in congratulating Pete
McGarvey, his family and the city of Orillia for making him its
choice for the Hall of Fame.
_____________________________________________
13001
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaking, following the meeting of the contact group on
Bosnia, Canada's allies decided to respond to the affronts by
Bosnian Serbs by consolidating the action of the peacekeeping
forces through a redefinition of their mandate and a diplomatic
approach to obtaining the release of nearly 400 peacekeepers,
including ten Canadians. Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs
followed closely in NATO's footsteps this morning, but without,
however, setting out Canada's position in clear terms with
respect to the consolidation of the peacekeepers' mandate.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In the light of the
emergency debate permitted yesterday, would he tell us what
definite instructions he sent to his Minister of Foreign Affairs,
who will represent us tomorrow at NATO's other meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had an opportunity yesterday in this House to explain
the need at this point for the United Nations to establish new
directives for the troops in order to avoid a repetition of the
hostage taking and, perhaps, to redefine their mandate so that
the troops could act more quickly in the event of an emergency
than they have been able to in the past.
Today, at the United Nations, the Secretary General is to
submit new directives in this regard to the Security Council. We
had an opportunity over the weekend to express Canada's point
of view. We will see what the Security Council decides. Our
troops in Bosnia are under the command of the United Nations,
and the UN gives the necessary orders.
The Secretary General confirmed to me that the role of our
soldiers needed redefining and that they should be redeployed so
as to be in a position to defend themselves more readily. We will
see what the UN decides later on this week.
As for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he is acting on the
instructions in the statements issued in this House during
yesterday's debate by the Minister of National Defence and my
responses in Question Period yesterday.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Foreign Affairs has only what the
Prime Minister has just said to go on, he will have to fudge it
tomorrow in Brussels, because there is nothing clear in what the
Prime Minister has said, it is extremely ambiguous. Other
countries are members of the UN forces and have made concrete
decisions. France, Great Britain and the United States, for
example, have sent additional troops and equipment that is more
suitable for over there.
I would ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether his
government has sent or will send additional equipment on an
emergency basis such as heavier tanks and arms so that our
peacekeepers may defend themselves and bring their peace
mission to a successful conclusion.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not yet made any decision in this regard. We
believe that our troops, where they are placed at the moment,
have what they need in order to be able to react, particularly if
13002
their mandate is redefined. We have decided not to send
additional troops for the time being.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that I spoke of heavier equipment
and more effective weapons and that the answer remains: ``We
have not made any decision''. And so we are still in the dark.
This is indeed worrisome, Mr. Speaker.
When decisions guiding international action in Bosnia are
made by the contact group, how does the Prime Minister explain
Canada's sending the fifth largest contingent to Bosnia and
Croatia without being a member of the contact group, unlike the
United States and Germany, which are members without having
sent a single peacekeeper there?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I explained that 25 countries are represented
with troops in the former Yugoslavia, and that most of them are
not in the contact group. These countries include Spain,
Holland, Denmark, Canada, Pakistan and others that are there.
We are in contact with these people at the moment, and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs is in contact with his counterparts in
the group. A NATO meeting was held this morning; there will be
another one tomorrow, I think. And there is talk of a meeting of
defence ministers on the weekend. So the Minister of National
Defence will be there, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is
already there. I said that, as regards the Canadian position at this
point, there is no need to send new equipment; what we have
there now is satisfactory.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The public is concerned about the fate of the 380
peacekeepers, including 10 Canadians, held hostage by the
Bosnian Serbs as well as 45 other Canadian soldiers surrounded
by the Serbs. The base in Valcartier has received 1,200 calls
from relatives concerned about the safety of the soldiers
deployed in the former Yugoslavia.
Given that the public worries about the fate of our
peacekeepers in Bosnia and that negotiations to secure the
release of the Canadian hostages have yet to produce concrete
results, how can the government be so vague-like the Prime
Minister's response-about its position on the current crisis in
Bosnia, when France, Great Britain and the U.S. have already
announced concrete actions? These soldiers' families want
concrete actions and decisions.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that we participated in all the weekend
discussions. I have been in contact with the leaders of the
governments that have troops over there, like Great Britain and
France, and with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Some of our soldiers are in a difficult position but they are not
very far from the base in Visoko, and we are in contact with
those who have been captured and those who are in a
non-mobile position, so to speak. Two Canadians are held
outside that area, one of them in Pale, and we were able to
communicate with him in the last few hours.
Unfortunately, we have not heard recently from Corporal
Lapalme, who is in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo, and with
whom we are currently trying to establish contact. So far,
however, we can assure the families that we are staying in
contact with everyone involved, with the exception of Corporal
Lapalme, and we are doing everything in our power to ensure
that they remain alive. Our current approach is probably the best
way of securing their release as soon as possible.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary is also for the Prime Minister.
Given that everyone agrees that the peacekeepers' mandate
should be redefined-although the Minister of National
Defence was unable to do so yesterday-and that we are waiting
for the United Nations' response, how does the Canadian
government propose to redefine the UN mandate of Canadian
peacekeepers?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I said we took an initiative on that. Last week
we discussed the mandate with the United Nations.
I will repeat in the House that we have to make sure troops are
not spread around like they are at the moment. We would like
them to be concentrated in places where they can defend
themselves and be defended by other people at the bases. That is
the main preoccupation. When they are alone in observation
towers, for instance, they are in some difficulty because they
cannot readily defend themselves.
That is exactly what the UN is considering at the moment, to
give peacekeepers a role more in relation to the means they
have. The troops are under the command of the United Nations
there and the secretary general is supposed to present new
guidelines to the security council possibly later today.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last 24 hours the UN's mandate in the former
Yugoslavia is being shifted from a focus on peacekeeping to
aggressive peacemaking.
(1425 )
Britain has announced it will be sending 5,000 more troops.
France is committing an aircraft carrier and helicopter gun
13003
ships. The U.S. may contribute commandos to the conflict. The
UN contact group has also endorsed a plan that would give UN
soldiers the power to aggressively attack warring factions.
Does the government support shifting the UN mandate in this
direction, shifts which will escalate military activity in the
former Yugoslavia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question at this moment of shifting the
mandate of peacekeeping to enforcing peace in the way
described by the hon. member. They are sending more troops
there to protect their own troops.
I explained the Canadian situation. We are not in exactly the
same position. Our troops are not as spread out as others. It is not
a question at this moment of Canada's sending more troops.
The mandate is not to start a war with anybody but to protect
the troops there, which is exactly what we are supporting.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to many observers it appears the UN mandate is
shifting. If the government simply passively accepts those
shifts, the public will want to know what that means for Canada.
In March the government sent our peacekeepers back to
Bosnia without a clear mandate, without firm criteria for staying
or withdrawing and without a voice in the decision making
contact group.
If the government insists on staying under conditions of
military escalation will it now insist on being given a place at
the table with the United Nations contact group? In other words,
will that be a condition which must be met if Canadian
peacekeepers are to remain?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been concerns on the part of a number of countries about
the contact group and membership.
As a result we are now looking at perhaps shifting some of the
focus to NATO nations contributing troops. There may be a
meeting on Saturday or a few days later in Brussels to deal with
that.
Canada is certainly a member of that group. We had one
meeting last December-
Mr. Hermanson: It is almost June.
Mr. Collenette: If the hon. member would listen, I will
explain.
We have had continual contact back and forth, personal, one
on one and bilateral and other multilateral meetings since last
December between the Minister of Foreign Affairs, myself and
other ministers of defence of NATO contributing nations.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is in Europe, has been
fully apprised of what has been happening and has given input
into the deliberations that went on yesterday.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what continually disturbs us about this discussion is
the fuzziness of the government's criteria for remaining and the
fuzziness of its strategy in this troubled part of the world.
I will ask the minister again a very straight question, one
Canadians want answered. If the government has decided
Canadian peacekeepers are to remain in the former Yugoslavia,
with their lives even more at risk because of the escalating
dangers, will it be conditional on the government's being given a
place in the UN contact group, yes or no?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know why the hon. leader of the Reform Party is so preoccupied
at this late date with the forum for discussion.
Discussions are ongoing. There is nothing fuzzy about the
government's position. I do not know how the hon. leader of the
Reform Party can make that statement having sat here last night
and listened to my speech in which I outlined the number of
criteria for our continued participation in a redefined UN
mandate. That was outlined again today by our Minister of
Foreign Affairs in The Hague.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
A study conducted by Project Ploughshares, a research
institute in Waterloo, Ontario, shows that in 1993-94, more than
US$200 million in military equipment manufactured in Canada
was exported to at least 11 of the 39 countries ravaged by civil
war last year, in contravention of the arms exports controls.
How can the Minister of National Defence explain the fact
that the government authorized the sale of Canadian-made arms
and military equipment to countries like Peru, Turkey and
Burma, where human rights are systematically violated?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very clear in the
countries that it supports with the delivery of arms and parts for
munitions.
Most of our trade is with the United States, with NATO
countries or with other countries with which we have a
production agreement. We do not send and sell arms to third
world
13004
countries that are in a conflict situation or any country that is in
a conflict situation either with another state or with its internal
population.
We have not yet seen the report to which the member refers. It
has not been made public to us but we will be reviewing it as
soon as it is made available to the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): But this was reported in
the press yesterday, Mr. Speaker. This study also shows that
Canada is the seventh largest supplier of military weapons to
third world countries.
My supplementary is for the Minister of National Defence.
Are we to understand that this violation of arms trade
regulations by the Canadian government is totally in line with
its new foreign policy, which puts trade before human rights?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the report
which was reported upon in the press yesterday has not been
made publicly available to the government. We will be
reviewing it when we do get that document.
The fact is that Canada supports the reduction of the
production in trade of conventional weapons. We are very active
on the international commitment to that. We are dialoguing with
other nations to see what we can do.
We feel that the proliferation of conventional weapons is one
of the most serious problems confronting our world and is
causing so much of the conflict that we are having to address.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
defence minister who is sending a double message to Canadians.
On one hand he is beating his chest and talking tough about a
beefed up mission to Bosnia while in reality his poor leadership
and defence cuts have reduced the morale and effectiveness of
our military.
The minister cannot have it both ways. Is he going to cut the
military or is he going to beef it up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the critic
for the Reform Party says that I have some explanations to give.
Perhaps he would like to give an explanation to Canadians as to
why he advocated yesterday on behalf of his party that
Canadians retreat from Bosnia, leave our hostages there and
allow the rest to get him out.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Reformers or
Canadians do not leave hostages behind when they conduct a
retreat.
This morning, the Bosnian ambassador to the UN commented
on the uselessness of the UN operation. He said: ``Under these
circumstances, the humanitarian mission is over''. Considering
this, will the Prime Minister admit that no humanitarian aid is
getting through and that this reality is a direct contradiction to
what he argued yesterday in this House?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
it says something about the state of the Reform Party that the
hon. foreign affairs critic seems to know a lot about the science
of retreat. Perhaps he would like to edify the House as to how
that will apply to other Reform Party policies.
The fact is that we are not going to leave those people in the
former Yugoslavia to brutality, to torture or to carnage. We
believe we have an obligation as part of the United Nations
mandate to help bring some stability to that area. We are
certainly not going to do anything to endanger the safety of our
captured troops, least of all retreat.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The people of Saint-Siméon and the surrounding area in the
Charlevoix riding, are bracing themselves for the
unemployment insurance reforms imposed by the minister in the
February 1994 budget. These dramatic reforms are hitting them
very hard. Entire families have been forced onto social
assistance, because of the inadequacy of the unemployment
insurance system.
Does the minister realize that his reforms have pushed
thousands of citizens, like those of Saint-Siméon, closer to
misery, and that he must revoke these cuts in order to stop
thousands of unemployed people from flocking to social
assistance.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out in the
House in the past, our changes to the unemployment insurance
provide a substantially higher benefit for low income
unemployment insurance claimants. In the last account I think
some 280,000 Canadians, including 80,000 in the province of
Quebec alone,
13005
have been able to receive an additional $1,000 per year as a
result of the changes we implemented.
I have read the comments of the people of the St. Simeon area
and their concern about the design of the UI zone, but that is a
very different issue. That goes back to the UI reforms which
were brought in by the Conservative government when the hon.
member's hon. leader was a member of that government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is
my supplementary question. The time for speeches has passed:
it is now time to act.
Does the minister realize that, while he doles millions of
dollars out to the Winnipeg Jets, the unemployment insurance
cuts made by this government and the one before it, in particular
those contained in this government's last two budgets, are
making life miserable for the unemployed and unbearable for
seasonal workers?
The Speaker: Please ask your question.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I will start over again.
Does the minister realize that the unemployment insurance
cuts-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I could not hear you. Please
ask your question.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, here is my question.
Does the minister realize that, while he doles millions of
dollars out to the Winnipeg Jets, the unemployment insurance
cuts contained in this government's last two budgets are making
life unbearable for seasonal workers and are causing people
from Charlevoix to starve?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could
serve his constituents in that area most effectively if he were
able to use his powers of persuasion with his colleagues to join
with us as we attempt to provide a major modernization of the
unemployment insurance system. It will provide the kinds of
tools and resources that will enable people to get back to work.
The problem is the Bloc Quebecois has opposed every effort
to provide for an improved unemployment insurance system,
every effort to give people more resources to get back to work. I
would appeal to the hon. member to use his good offices to try to
change his party's policies and co-operate with us in trying to
provide a much more effective unemployment insurance system
for Canadians.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems the government will leave our Canadian forces
in the former Yugoslavia.
Our mandate in Bosnia is to assist in the delivery of goods, but
the Sarajevo airport is and has often been closed and when
convoys do move they are often prevented from reaching their
destinations. Last night the defence minister suggested that to
reduce our vulnerability we will pull in our observers and
concentrate our forces for protection.
(1440)
Will the minister explain how we are to carry out our mandate
when supplies are not getting through and our troops are all
hunkered down in bunkered compounds?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
critic for the Reform Party is taking considerable licence with
what I said last night.
When we talk about perhaps bringing the UNMOs out of
exposed situations, that to me is good common sense. When we
talk about concentration of troops as the Prime Minister has
explained, this does not necessarily apply to Canada because our
troops are reasonably well concentrated at our two posts at
Kiseljak and Visoko. But it does make good sense for the UN to
continue the mandate to have some concentration of its forces so
there is less exposure.
I would like to take exception to what the hon. member has
been saying in terms of the discharging of the mandate in
Bosnia. The fact is that for most of the last three years those
flights have operated with Canadian Hercules from Ancona to
Sarajevo. That has been a lifeline which has kept those people
fed. The other convoys have been getting through. Of course in
the last couple of weeks things have been difficult, but the last
couple of weeks does not tell the tale.
I continue to be completely surprised as to how members of
his party stand in the House and offer a plan to retreat when they
should be offering the Canadian people a plan to retrieve our
peacekeepers.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party is suggesting a withdrawal.
Will the government acknowledge that withdrawal at this
time does not mean abandonment of the region but rather opens
the door to other options which are currently unavailable
because of the threat of hostages? For instance, has the
government considered replacing withdrawn ground forces with
an air squadron, thus continuing Canadian presence and
providing a needed capability?
13006
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the logic
of Reform Party members is incredible. They stood here last
night and told us to get out of there and basically gave us
detailed plans for a retreat. Now the hon. member is asking for
the application of air power.
I would like to ask him to please make up his mind and be
consistent? At least the official opposition is consistent and we
respect and are grateful for its support. However, let us have
some consistency of opinion in this whole matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
The action taken by the RCMP and CSIS against Pierre
Laberge, a retired RCMP employee who came down in favour of
Quebec sovereignty, was apparently not enough for Normand
Chamberland, Director General of CSIS in Quebec, since he has
just fired Mr. Laberge's wife for no reason after 10 years of
service.
How can the solicitor general let Normand Chamberland, who
planted bombs in Quebec in the 1970s, be so unfair to Mr.
Laberge's wife, simply because Mr. Laberge expressed his
support for Quebec sovereignty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a well known fact that CSIS is cutting staff. It
seems that the employee in question is part of the cuts. I have
been told that this decision has nothing to do with opinions she
or her husband expressed.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it so
happens that Mr. Laberge's wife was the only one not wanting to
leave and that the job cut, effective June 1, was announced last
Tuesday. The fact that the government condones this action
suggests that she indeed was fired.
Is the government so worried about the outcome of the
referendum campaign that it condones such acts of pure
intimidation against people whose only crime is to have a
sovereignist spouse?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's allegations. As I just
said, the decision is due to the staff cuts at CSIS and has nothing
to do with the opinions in question.
(1445)
It is sometimes not possible to lay off only those employees
who want to leave. In cutting staff at CSIS and in other services,
it will not be possible to get everybody who has to leave to do so
voluntarily.
As I just said, this layoff has nothing to do with the opinions in
question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
My constituents have expressed concern over line-ups at
border points for tourists and for people working on both sides
of the border. We must make border crossing between Canada
and the United States easier for tourists so they will feel
welcome to Canada.
What is the minister doing to relieve congestion and
frustration at the border points?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of measures being taken.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern in this
area, which he has expressed on a number of occasions most
forcibly.
We are in fact proposing that we make a change to the $300
exemption paperwork at the border so it can be done without
filling out a form. This initiative is a proposal at the present
time. Consultations are ongoing but if the consultations are
successful we expect to bring it in by August 1 of this year.
It is an initiative that is consistent with the U.S.-Canada
border accord that the Prime Minister and the President of the
United States signed last February. It will streamline clearance
procedures, save approximately 16 person years of time for
Revenue Canada and will be one of a series of measures to make
our border more user friendly and less of a hassle for the honest
border crosser.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, since the defence minister is so certain about the
security of our Canadian troops, maybe he would like to suggest
exchanging himself for the 55 Canadian peacekeeper hostages
in Bosnia.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence
have stated that Canada is not prepared to commit any more
resources to the former Yugoslavia. In fact, Canada has no more
resources. Maybe we should talk about the lack of helmets or the
lack of flak jackets or our outdated, obsolete armoured
personnel carriers.
13007
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. I would
also like to remind him that we have troops who have spent
three and four terms in Bosnia. Will the minister admit that
Canada has no more resources to commit, that we are stretched
to the limit and that we should be out?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member who just asked the question was a participant and a
member of the special joint committee. That committee made
certain recommendations about the availability of Canadian
forces and those recommendations were followed in the white
paper. That means that in certain circumstances for conflicts of
this nature we should have ready additional personnel if
required. The white paper calls for that and those people are
there. We are taking steps to address the fact that we have been
engaged quite frequently in peacekeeping missions by putting
3,000 more ground troops into the sharp end.
Before the hon. member makes these outrageous assertions in
the House of Commons, perhaps he should read his own
committee's report, which he signed, and the defence white
paper.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the responses from the Minister of
National Defence and the Prime Minister today. Are we talking
about the same conflict? When we listen to them we think ``now
we have them right where they want us''. That is the situation we
are in.
The Minister of National Defence said that Canada has no
plans to send additional troops at the moment. This is what he
said: ``Unless there is a need for a withdrawal of forces under the
auspices of NATO, and then of course we would be part''-
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put his
question.
(1450 )
Mr. Hart: Given that the minister disbanded the airborne
regiment, Canada's sole rapid reaction force, what resources
does he have left to send over?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
perhaps would not want to get into a convoluted answer to a
convoluted question.
I will take this opportunity to say that one of the people who
has been detained, hostage Captain Rechner, was contacted a
few hours ago through a Serbian interpreter. He is in good shape
and is well fed. He has been able to bring supplies from his own
quarters but he is still being detained. He is no longer being
chained to a pole.
I thought the House would want to know this. We remain
concerned about Captain Lapalm. Of course the other people
who are detained in Ilijas are in relatively good shape, as we
have previously described.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
If you consider that Michel Robert was appointed to the
Quebec Court of Appeal, and if you add to that the fact that
Jacques Courtois took ill and Rosemary Brown clearly lost
interest, it would appear that the Security Intelligence Review
Committee has become virtually inoperable. There is no one
monitoring the activities of the Canadian secret service. While
the cat is away, the mice will play and the spies will spy.
Does the solicitor general recognize that, for all intents and
purposes, the Security Intelligence Review Committee is not
functional and that there is therefore an urgent need to fill the
vacancy and replace members who are no longer interested in
carrying out their responsibilities?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the allegation of the hon. member that
the Security Intelligence Review Committee is inoperable. It is
in the position to carry out its functions. There are a sufficient
number of members there to fulfil the requirement of the law
with respect to its quorum. However, the matter of the vacancy
is under review by the cabinet. I hope there will be an
appropriate step taken under the law very soon to deal with the
vacancy.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the reported case of former CSIS agent
Pierre Laberge and the firing of his wife, will the Prime
Minister-and this time my question is for him-undertake to
fill these positions and consult the Leader of the Official
Opposition before making any appointment to the review
committee, as required by law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the Solicitor General has already answered
this question. This position will be filled very shortly. I am very
surprised at the official opposition for making such allegations,
considering that hundreds of people have lost their jobs in
Quebec City because they did not believe in the separatist
option.
13008
In this case, the Solicitor General indicated that Mr. Laberge's
wife was unfortunately among those who had to be laid off as
part of the cuts imposed by the government.
I find the opposition's allegations incredible, having seen for
example the firing of Mrs. Thibault, who was the president of an
association for persons with disabilities, because she was a
known Liberal supporter. If I were in their shoes, with the
hundred or so shameful cases of patronage in Quebec over the
past nine months, I would shut my mouth.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
defence minister has been widely quoted as saying that Canada
supports the NATO air strikes. On Saturday, however, Canadian
UN ambassador Robert Fowler stated that the Canadian
government opposed punitive air strikes against Bosnian Serbs.
``Air strikes as NATO carried out last week'', he said, ``were not
useful''.
Is Bob Fowler still running Canadian defence policy? If not,
can the minister correct this discrepancy by explaining Canada's
actual position?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has
been no change with respect to Canada's policy on the use of
NATO air power.
We had a number of discussions a year ago. The Prime
Minister was in those discussions. As a result, we agreed to the
use of NATO air power when requested by the UN forces on the
ground for close air support, for protection of UN personnel and
in certain situations relating to the safety of people in the
various enclaves in Croatia and Bosnia. However, we did agree
in certain circumstances that they could be used for other less
defensive needs.
(1455)
In the last couple of days we have said that if such air attacks
as were deployed last week were to be used again, we would
prefer some modification to the approval process so that Canada
would certainly be part of that decision in a more formal sense.
With respect to the general application of the policy with
close air support, as I have earlier described, we are quite happy
with the way that process has been working in the past.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
Bob Fowler would feel so free to express his own personal
opinion I think speaks volumes about the mess at the
Department of National Defence. There is a huge vacuum of
leadership. I think Mr. Fowler thought he would step in and fill
it.
What is the minister doing to improve the communications
and clear up the confusion in his own department at a time when
the safety of our own troops depends on it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
seeing a pattern of questions in the House today that is very
unfortunate.
The lives of Canadian men and women are in danger. Despite
our partisan differences on other matters, all of our questions
and all of our thoughts should be on how to improve the
situation, not to make petty criticisms on the floor of the House
of Commons.
The hon. member speaks of a vacuum, but when we hear the
comments of his defence critic, who a few moments ago said
``retreat is not withdrawal and withdrawal doesn't mean you
leave'', one wonders where the vacuum is and who is actually
setting policy on that side of the House.
* * *
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As he
knows, last April 27 the Canadian Wheat Board issued an
embargo on pasta from the European Union.
This action has spawned an artificial distribution system,
weakened the financial stability of hundreds of family retail
enterprises dependent on the sales of pasta for survival and put
thousands of Canadian jobs at risk. Moreover, for consumers it
has caused a price increase for a reduced variety of product. Will
the minister either rescind the order or modify it so these effects
can be corrected?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the source of the problem
described by the hon. member in his question is obviously
European subsidization on European pasta exports which
recommenced as of April 1.
We have asked the Europeans to withdraw their subsidies, but
to date they have declined. The Canadian Wheat Board has had
no choice but to respond, which the board did on April 27 by
reimposing Canadian import restrictions on certain pasta
products.
These restrictions limited imports to retail sized packages
imported by retailers. Since the time that measure was imposed
we have been made aware by the hon. member and by others of
certain unintended effects to small retailers who normally use
wholesalers to import pasta on the small retailers' behalf.
Accordingly the Canadian Wheat Board is making certain
administrative adjustments to address this issue to allow import
permits for pasta imported by wholesalers if that pasta has been
imported on behalf of a small retailer and will be sold only to the
13009
public by that retailer, as evidenced by an affidavit signed by
both the retailer and the wholesaler.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week, in a controversial ruling on child support, the
Supreme Court rejected Suzanne Thibaudeau's appeal. The
Minister of Justice immediately stated that he would act quickly
in this matter.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what his justice minister meant
when he announced his intention to act quickly in the matter
involving Ms. Thibaudeau and what measures he intends to
take?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Justice indicated very clearly the government's intention to
issue a statement before the House adjourns in June. We
certainly intend to do just that. The hon. member must know that
we raised the problem in our first budget, and we are studying it
very seriously.
* * *
(1500 )
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, further to my question on allegations of illegal
dumping by the Canadian Wheat Board, we have now
confirmation from the RCMP both in Winnipeg and Ottawa that
no one from the Solicitor General's office ever asked them to
review these allegations.
Why then did the Solicitor General write to me on March 28,
1995 and say that the RCMP had been asked?
The Speaker: That brings question period to a conclusion.
I have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Saint
John.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege today because I feel that my privileges as a
member of Parliament and my privacy have been severely
undermined by the government through its report on plain and
generic packaging of tobacco products.
Because of the House recess last week, I have not been able to
bring this matter to the attention of the House until today. The
Minister of Health-
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would appeal to you. One of
our members is rising on a point of privilege which could affect
all hon. members in the House. I would ask you to please listen
attentively, as I intend to do.
Mrs. Wayne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Health released the report two weeks ago.
Over 1,300 copies were given to the press in the National Press
Gallery. It contained eight pictures used in a visual impact
study. To my astonishment, my picture was one of them. In the
report I was stereotyped as a smoker, which I am not, grossly
overweight, which my doctor says I am not, and I guess they
have me almost as an 80-year-old woman, which I am not.
At no time did I give permission for the photo to be used nor
did anyone from the Department of Health consult me. This type
of stereotyping is an assault on my dignity as an individual and
as a member of the House. It opens me up to ridicule and thus
may impede my ability to perform my duties effectively.
To facilitate your work, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw
your attention to a ruling by your predecessor, Speaker Bosley,
on a similar case in 1985. The issue involved an advertisement
in a newspaper that identified a member of Parliament as
someone else. Speaker Bosley said:
Anything tending to cause confusion regarding a member's identity creates
the possibility of an impediment to fulfilment of the member's functions and
constitutes a breach of privilege.
Speaker Bosley ruled that it was a prima facie case and
referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections. That case is similar to mine because a member of
Parliament was misrepresented.
(1505 )
That is essentially the issue in this case. I have been identified
and stereotyped in a manner that misrepresents me, not to
mention the photo was used without my permission.
I have asked the Prime Minister for a public apology for the
unauthorized use of this photo in a public document and a full
accounting and explanation of how the health minister could
have allowed this to happen. I have yet to receive a response.
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I ask you to rule on this question of
privilege.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Saint John has raised a very
serious issue, one that I know the Minister of Health is very
anxious to reply to when she is available. Unfortunately, the
Minister of Health cannot be here today. I am informed that she
will be back in the House later this week. When she returns I
know she will
13010
want to make submissions to Your Honour and to the House
concerning the very serious allegation raised by the hon.
member for Saint John.
I would invite Your Honour to adjourn the matter until the
Minister of Health is here and we can hear from her. I hope Your
Honour will then take the matter under advisement and render a
decision in due course.
The Speaker: Colleagues, this is a very serious matter and I
take it as such.
The case was put to the House in a very succinct manner and I
thank the hon. member for Saint John. I also thank the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands.
A minister of the crown is involved. With the permission of
the House, I would like to have the minister enlighten us as to
what happened. Perhaps it can be settled in that way, always
keeping in mind that the hon. member's point of privilege will
be dealt with in the House. However I would like the time to hear
from the hon. minister when she returns, if that is agreeable.
_____________________________________________
13010
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
rise today to participate in this debate on the Reform Party's
motion, it is to protect the aspirations and vested rights of
women in Quebec and Canada. As we know, this motion
concerns employment equity. It embodies-pardon me for being
so blunt-every myth conveyed against employment equity.
The motion even refers to the concept of unnecessary,
ineffective, costly, unpopular and discriminatory measures. Our
colleagues from the Reform Party therefore conclude that this
whole system should be abolished and replaced with a system
based solely on merit. Before going any further, I take this
opportunity to denounce the implication that employment
equity target groups, namely women, aboriginal people, persons
with disabilities and visible or ethnic minorities, do not have as
much merit as others.
Let us start with a definition. What is employment equity? In
a document prepared by the Public Service Alliance of Canada
for the 1992-93 regional conference of women, employment
equity is defined as a process intended to bring about an equal
distribution of workers who are too often refused training and
promotion occupations within certain groups and areas. It added
that, to be successful, employment initiatives must go beyond
mere recruiting to ensure an environment free from
discriminatory practices at work.
It should also be pointed out that one can take one of two
views on employment equity; one being centred on results and
the other on equal opportunity. I like to think that our society is
seeking a balanced mix of the two.
(1510)
The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the principle underlying
the employment equity legislation. Recognition of the fact that
entire segments of our society are basically denied equal access
to decent jobs is crucial to the issue of women and poverty.
Women, as we have said time and time again, are poor.
Women members of visible minority groups, aboriginal women
and women with disabilities are even poorer. Is it necessary, in
May 1995, to back this up with statistics? I think not, and I will
spare the House the statistics today.
In the face of this problem of poverty, which all too often is
chronic among women, one must realize that employment
equity measures are not only necessary, but essential, in order to
fight poverty. Only through economic equality will this problem
be resolved, but except in rare cases, economic survival is
dependent upon employment.
Let us now move to the heart of the matter. Before statistics
can be compiled on women or aboriginal people in key positions
or their promotion rate, members of the target groups mentioned
designated in the legislation must first find jobs. In order for
them to have access to jobs, measures have to be developed to
foster equal employment opportunity, as job access is dependent
upon certain preconditions.
For one thing, it may be useful to remind members that the
mere existence of a sufficient number of available jobs is in
itself a basic requirement. Some other conditions are the
existence of full-time permanent jobs, a social infrastructure,
adequate daycare and job training and access to non-traditional
jobs. I will elaborate on the above points.
As I already mentioned, saying that a sufficient number of
jobs are necessary to promote the access of women and of other
groups to employment is a truism. Unfortunately, it is all too
true that the current government has relegated this issue to the
sidelines.
The Bloc Quebecois has vehemently decried the shameful
omission of job creation programs from the two Liberal budgets.
In effect, apart from the national infrastructure program, this
issue has been at a standstill. And the jobs which have been
created, temporary for the most part, only target men. There is
nothing available for women, nothing at all. We have already
seen much better job access visions.
Here is an example of an invalid policy on job access. To have
access to jobs, there must first be jobs available. That is the very
foundation of the principle. For women or other groups desig-
13011
nated under the act to have equal access, the jobs that are
accessible to them must be full-time and permanent, just like
most of the jobs held by white men. Why? Let us take a look at
the statistics.
A study carried out by Statistics Canada and published in the
autumn of 1994 revealed that for the period between 1980 and
1993, most of the people working part-time against their
wishes, I stress against their wishes, were women. In 1993, some
510,000 women in Canada held part-time positions, twice the
number of men in the same category. Therefore, it is women who
are having to deal with the problem of part-time work. The
effect of this, as you might have guessed, is first on salary and
then on advancement possibilities and thus on the possibility of
attairing a better standard of living.
Likewise, permanent jobs are essential. Women are in the
unfortunate position of being the leaders in casual, seasonal and
badly paid jobs.
We have already referred to the march organized by Quebec
women to demand that the government act to reduce poverty
among women. The organizers of the ``bread and roses march''
are demanding, on behalf of the women of Quebec, what they
have combined under the heading of social infrastructure, which
includes the resources to be put in place to help improve the
quality of life in their communities.
I refer here to resources for self-help initiatives, help for the
disadvantaged, popular education, day care, literacy programs
and integration of new arrivals. These resources, in addition to
providing obvious support for social organization also give rise
to many jobs for women where their particular skills are
recognized. These resources must be strengthened and
supported. This is a measure promoting women's access to jobs.
(1515)
When it comes to job access, the immediate stumbling block
for many women is child care. We must continually remind
ourselves that real access to child care services is often the first
step women must take on the road to work. If they run into a wall
at this stage, there is no point in talking about job access. And
we are still waiting for the government to move on this, as it
promised to do in the red book, and provide day care spaces.
Similarly, it is hard to talk about equal access to employment
when individuals lack the training required to hold the jobs that
are still available. Women have always been disadvantaged in
this regard. The ``bread and roses'' marchers have drawn
attention to the problems of women without cheques, women
who are excluded from subsidized training programs, because
they receive neither UI nor welfare
The figures are alarming. Forty-four per cent of the adult
population have not completed high school or professional
studies. However, jobs created in the year 2000 will require 17
years of education. When you do not have a diploma, it is hard to
talk about equal opportunity.
To conclude this overview of the prerequisites to access to
employment, we must not forget women's access to
non-traditional jobs, because they are for the most part the new
jobs being created. As an example, I would like to mention the
proposal made last week to the Conseil régional de concertation
et de développement de Québec by the Regroupement des
groupes de femmes du Québec and the Comité régional des
partenaires pour l'accès et l'intégration des femmes aux
secteurs d'emplois non traditionnels.
This proposal asked that the Conseil régional establish an
equal opportunity policy and enforce it in the implementation of
projects submitted by sponsors. This is what is innovative about
it: in order to promote the access of women to non-traditional
employment, sponsors who wish to have a project approved by
the Conseil régional will have to develop and implement an
equity program within their business. Now that is taking the bull
by the horns. It is also the sort of concrete action target groups
need if they are to have equal access to employment.
Let us now move on to the second stage of the process, the
working environment per se, which brings us to some statistics.
We will assume that there are measures to promote access to
employment and that they are effective. Women and other
groups therefore have jobs. Is there still a need for employment
equity measures? As you will have guessed, the answer is yes.
Who gets the jobs that pay well and that are higher up the
ladder? Unfortunately, the statistics in no way back up the
Reform Party's motion. First of all, with respect to salary, we
know that women, even those with university diplomas, are still
earning 73 per cent of what men earn. This is an inequality that
is partially explained by the fact that women are concentrated in
the lower ranking, and therefore less well remunerated, jobs.
In the Public Service of Canada, 84 per cent of women occupy
such jobs. However, women represent only 16.1 per cent of the
executive group of this same employer. And yet, I would point
out, the Public Service of Canada is governed by an employment
equity act.
In Quebec City, which has adopted an equity policy, women
account for 81 per cent of employees earning less than $41,000.
Imagine the situation when employers are not subject to this
legislation. Women therefore occupy jobs that pay less and carry
no decision making authority. They must also contend with the
highly disturbing phenomenon of sexual harassment.
We know that sexual harassment prevents women from
attaining equality since victims often end up leaving their jobs
or suffering the consequences when they file a complaint. The
problem is a major one. It has been hardly a year since the daily
newspaper Le Droit reported that, according to a Statistics
Canada survey, 25 per cent of women said they had experienced
harassment in the workplace, that is one woman in four. Of this
13012
number, 39 per cent of incidents involved a person in authority.
Surely no one would think for one moment that the job
performance of a woman who is the victim of sexual harassment
will be the same as that of a male colleague, that she will be
evaluated objectively, that her opinion will be taken into
account? Sexual harassment is a loathsome expression of the
inequality that often plagues women. All the measures aimed at
eliminating sexual harassment foster employment equity.
(1520)
I could also talk about the importance of working conditions
that are compatible with parental or support roles, such as
parental and maternity leave and flexible hours. Unfortunately, I
do not have enough time. I can, however, tell you that such
working conditions are an essential part of employment equity.
The measures designed to help individuals juggle family and job
responsibilities facilitate access to the labour market and
especially job retention. Such equity measures ultimately
promote women's economic equality.
I cannot conclude without commenting on the insidious merit
principle. The motion tabled by the Reform Party calls for
rejecting Bill C-64 because hiring and promotion should be
based solely on merit rather than on gender and race. If the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East is so determined to put merit
before gender and race, how does he explain the fact that women
still earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by men? I would
like him to explain this to me.
Of course, in an ideal world, hiring and promotion would be
fair, and there would be no discrimination on the basis of race,
gender or physical disability. Yet, statistics show that we do not
live in an ideal world. Non-disabled white men still hold 78 per
cent of management positions in the public service. The powers
and the economic levers are in their hands.
Let us look at the merit principle. As Kate Erickson of the
National Association of Women and the Law claims, merit is
assessed in a traditional way based on value judgments. The
merit principle is part of discrimination history. In other words,
during a job interview, a white man with the same lifestyle,
clothing and education as the CEO will seem better qualified.
On the other hand, a member of a visible minority will not
benefit from the same stereotype and will seem unqualified. Yet,
if these people were judged solely on their qualifications and
experience, without a family name revealing ethnic origin, for
example, it might be possible to look at their real qualifications
independently of their social status.
The notion of merit is rather arbitrary. Systemic barriers have
always prevented some individuals from landing jobs. The
employment equity legislation does not suggest that individuals
without qualifications be hired. It does not suggest that we
should hire people on the basis of their race, gender or physical
condition. It suggests that systemic barriers be removed so that
individuals who meet the job requirements can be hired in spite
of their differences.
In an ideal world free of racism and discrimination, we would
not need this kind of legislation. However, in a world where
employers do not want to hire a certain individual because it
would mean having to widen doorways in order to allow
wheelchair access, where 25 per cent of women are sexually
harassed in the workplace, where women with disabilities and
immigrant women are poorer than their male counterparts, we
need such legislation. The fact is that, at present, the workplace
does not operate on merit and is not fair and equal. Without
legislation, there can be no fairness.
Only a very small part of the motion is acceptable in its
wording. ``Equality for all Canadians'' are fine words
describing an ideal situation. Unfortunately, we are still a
million miles from there, especially as far as women, aboriginal
peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible
minorities are concerned. And it is for these people that we pass
legislation on employment equity, so that, someday, they can
have equal access to jobs available to men and finally break out
of the poverty in which they are kept by the present system.
(1525)
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as a member of the committee reviewing employment
equity legislation, I am aware that 90 per cent of the witnesses
who came before the committee supported the legislation. I am
also aware that is likely more by the choice and selection of
those witnesses than by the actual representation of the
Canadian population to support that.
I have have just done a random telephone poll in my
constituency. My constituency is on the outskirts of Vancouver.
It is one of the more multicultural communities in our area, with
a high percentage of immigration, at least 50 per cent women, I
am sure, and so on.
The results of that random polling were opposite to what the
committee experienced. There was a 90 per cent rejection of any
kind of hiring other than on the basis of merit alone. I was
interested in some of the member's comments regarding merit.
The Canadian people think highly of that as a criterion for
hiring.
She commented on women in the workplace; 73 per cent of the
average wage and 78 per cent of men being in management
within the public service. Is my colleague aware that some of
that may be due to choice or the time factor involved in entry
into the workforce? Is she aware there are far more women being
allowed to enter grad school now than there are men? The
13013
average wage coming out of university is equal if not slightly to
the advantage of women.
Does she think women have the right to claim a choice if they
do not want to work full time? Is that a right they have if they
want to stay home with their families? Does she feel a woman
should enter full time into the workforce and demand equal right
for pay or can she choose to work less than that if she feels her
priorities are elsewhere?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I will answer my
colleague's three questions. I would be interested in seeing the
mini-survey of ethnic communities she says she conducted,
because a survey is supposed to be scientific. I would also like to
see from what perspective and in what order the questions were
asked. We all know that survey results can vary greatly,
depending on the way the question is asked and on the selection
of participants.
Therefore, I am going to go back to the committee. We have
heard a lot from ethnic communities, which all demand that the
act be maintained, because they are one of the groups which has
made the least progress. Therefore, I would like to see the
mini-survey conducted by the hon. member, and we could
perhaps analyze her constituents' answers scientifically. I
would very much like to see it, but what I do know is that the
ethnic communities which came before the committee said the
opposite of what my colleague claims.
In reply to her second question, the percentages I quoted are
from the Canadian public service which is already governed by
the Employment Equity Act. I could bring to my colleague's
attention that women are under-represented in management
positions and that this was what drew my criticism. My
colleague can cite other statistics, the widely accepted statistics
still remain, and they lament the under-representation of
women in management positions.
My colleague also raised the issue of a woman's choice to stay
at home. I myself have nothing against a woman choosing to
stay home and raise her children. I believe that it is not my place
to dictate the daily lives of women. What I really want to see are
balanced measures which promote the integration of various
groups, which include women, and give them access to
well-paid stable jobs and good working conditions. We all know
that many women hold unstable jobs and that the expression
``unstable job'' means that they do not have access to their
employer's benefit packages.
(1530)
Thus, I could not agree more with women having the choice of
staying home. However, should they decide to enter the
workforce, both women and disadvantaged designated groups
should be given every possible chance and access to measures
permitting them to hold well-paid jobs and to be trusted and
treated with respect by their employers.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In consultation with the
table officers I understand the rotation has been shifted a few
times today. With the greatest respect to all members, I am
looking for a speaker from the party whose allotted day it is. If
someone from that party is seeking the floor, I will recognize
them and then I will go to the government.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak today to the Reform Party's opposition
day motion on employment equity.
The motion states:
That this House deplore the government's employment equity policy as
unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular, intrusive, discriminatory and
harmful to designated and non-designated groups; that this House recognize
the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based
solely on merit rather than on gender and race; and that discriminatory
employment practices be more vigorously pursued on an individual, case by
case basis.
The Reform Party approaches the issue of employment equity
from this principle of the equality of all Canadians. We believe
all Canadians are equal regardless of what personal
characteristics they possess such as race, ethnicity, sex or what
part of the country they live in.
We believe in the equality of opportunity in the marketplace
but realize that equality will not necessarily result in equality of
results. The concept of our government sponsored employment
equity philosophy takes a much different approach.
It seeks to identify specific groups that ostensibly have been
discriminated against and are therefore considered
disadvantaged. Specifically, it has identified the four groups,
women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and
members of visible minorities.
I have a number of concerns about the concept of employment
equity and about its practical implementation. I want to
demonstrate employment equity as such is based on a number of
flawed assumptions.
Of great concern to me is that the government purports to
support the concept of the equality of all Canadians. Yet this
very principle, employment equity, and its underlying
philosophy fly directly in the face of the principle of true
equality.
How can the principle of equality be respected if some groups
are given preferential treatment in hiring, recruitment and
promotion in the public or the private sector through
employment equity laws and regulation?
13014
This contradiction is best exhibited in the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, section 15(1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the
equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in
particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This is a statement in our Constitution on the equality of our
citizens and the prohibition of discrimination based on certain
characteristics. Yet the contradiction to that philosophy of
employment equity is revealed in the next section of the charter,
section 15(2):
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its
object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups
including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
How can the charter of rights and freedoms recognize the
equality of Canadian citizens on one hand and then turn around
and state that principle of equality does not apply under certain
circumstances?
(1535 )
Some argue employment equity is needed because certain
portions of our population have been historically disadvantaged.
Let me discuss that for a moment.
Prior to 1967 most immigration into Canada was from Europe
and caucasian in character. Since that time our immigration
patterns have changed, to the better I am sure. Many immigrants
from all parts of the world are high wage earners. Most visible
minorities in Canada, because of government policies, are either
immigrants or children of immigrants. Going back to the
original philosophy, how then can they be deemed at an historic
disadvantage?
Surveys have shown some visible minority groups are among
our highest wage earners. Also, many come from highly
advantaged, educated backgrounds and yet are promoted and
protected by the employment equity legislation. Conversely,
other identifiable groups, ones not included in the visible
minority category, have low incomes and may face real
discrimination in the marketplace. They are left out of the
legislation. They are deemed less than equal because they are
not part of what is defined in this group.
The government purports to put forward the concept of
numerical goals and employment equity and will go to the wall
to say that never are these things to be deemed as quotas or
affirmative action.
I will take a few moments to review some of the historical
context of the present debate for it sheds much light on the
intention and direction of the present legislation.
As early as 1979 the Canada employment and immigration
commission established its affirmative action directive as an
advisory tool to the department. Then in 1983 the hon. member
for Windsor West, then President of the Treasury Board,
introduced a mandatory program of affirmative action in the
public service. Even at the outset there was a determined refusal
not to admit to the real meaning of racially based job quotas. As
we hear him say from those days: ``The numerical goals we will
be introducing as part of the affirmative action are not quotas''.
Those words are still said today but do they really mean
anything?
Of special interest is the 1984 report of the federal royal
commission. Judge Abella was the chair and the only member of
the commission which produced the report entitled ``Equality in
Employment''. In it the term employment equity appeared for
the first time. Abella rejected the older phrase affirmative action
on clearly pragmatic grounds.
I quote from the report her reason for using the new term: ``No
great principle is sacrificed in exchanging phrases of disputed
definitions for newer ones that may be more accurate and less
destructive of reasoned debate''. Obviously a pragmatic choice
of words, and for that reason the term employment equity was
invented and the term affirmative action was tossed aside.
In addition, the phrase numerical goals used in employment
equity legislation is really a euphemism for quotas. Bill C-64,
which was recently debated by the human rights commission,
incorporates numerical goals or quotas. Clause 10(1)(d)
requires employers to incorporate quotas within the
employment equity plan. This clause reads that an employer
shall establish short term numerical goals for the hiring and
promotion of persons in the designated groups in order to
increase their representation in each occupational group in the
workforce in which under-representation has been identified
and sets out measures to be taken in each year to meet those
goals.
Another illustration of the quota approach is the Treasury
Board's annual report on employment equity in the public
service. It outlines in some detail the philosophy of targets or
quotas in all aspects of employment, in the recruitment,
promotion and even the separation of employees from the
employer. It is presented in pure numbers with percentages and
totals broken down into a litany of categories. The problem with
this approach is that the world is not so neatly configured.
Numbers do not reflect the real world.
This leads to a third flat assumption of the employment equity
philosophy. If these numerical goals or quotas are not met and
consistent with the calculated diversity of our society it is
therefore concluded there must be discrimination that is
systemic in our society.
13015
(1540)
Let me discuss the concept of systemic discrimination.
Underlying the Abella report and all subsequent legislation has
been the conviction that racism in the form of systemic
discrimination is rampant in our society.
Abella's report stated: ``Non-whites all across Canada
complained of racism. They undeniably face discrimination
both overt and unjust''. This report was from a commission that
went across the country.
Who would present themselves to a committee such as that?
Would people who are happy in their circumstance go out of
their way to present? I do not think so. Perhaps even in this first
statement of systemic discrimination we have a distortion.
Is Canada a racist country? Perhaps this would be the
strongest argument for an affirmative action program as we see
here. We have equity departments throughout the public service
and the private sector and race relations councils where
individuals come forward to attest to alleged discrimination and
racism.
As I have mentioned, typically the people who come forward
are self-selected individuals who address these committees.
They are motivated by circumstance. Do we hear from the whole
population? It is true racism does exist. I believe all societies
have an element of racism to some degree. I also believe Canada
is by far not the worst. Part of our opposition to this bill is in
terms of guarding against a piece of legislation we believe
would promote an attitude of racism in the sense of dividing
people rather than bringing them together in our great society.
Is racism limited to only one race? Even as the media
discusses this issue we hear the terms white and racist put
together interchangeably. Even the term reverse discrimination
which has been discussed today assumes discrimination goes
only one way, from whites to non-whites. I reject that notion. If
we look at racism in real terms it can be from one race toward
any race. I do not think whites or other races have any particular
claim to it.
Is racism real in Canada? It is an element in our society like in
any other. Let me cite two reports. The Economic Council of
Canada put out a report in 1991, ``New Faces in a Crowd:
Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration''. It concluded
Canada had been remarkably successful in assimilating
immigrants from diverse backgrounds. It found there was no
significant discrimination against immigrants and that tolerance
toward immigrants was high and was found to be increasing.
Another report from the Economic Council of Canada in
1992, ``Earnings of Immigrants: A Comparative Analysis'',
focused more on what immigrants were paid. It found
unemployment among immigrants was actually lower than for
Canadian born citizens. This report's central conclusion was
there was no evidence of a systemic pay discrimination against
immigrants on the basis of colour.
There is a necessity to recognize diversity in our society. The
whole basis of employment equity rests on the raw numbers of
diversity. It is argued it should be reflected in employment in the
public sector and to a lesser extent in the private sector.
However, the diversity measured by employment equity is
measured through a voluntary process called
self-identification. Individuals must declare themselves as
belonging to a particular group that makes them eligible for
employment equity. This can be a very great problem with the
proposed system. This information is accumulated primarily
through the census of population data. For gender the process is
a given, but the self-identification process begins to break down
when determining who are visible minorities or who are persons
with disabilities.
(1545)
For instance, to determine if one is a member of a visible
minority one has to go through a four-step process as defined by
the employment equity data program established by Statistics
Canada. Step No. 1: persons are asked which ethnic or cultural
group their ancestors belonged to. They are even asked to mark
or specify as many as applicable among 15 possible choices.
Step No. 2: persons are asked in what country they were born; if
Canada, what province or territory; if outside Canada, what
other country. Step No. 3: a question is asked about the person's
mother tongue. Step No. 4 attempts to group those the first three
steps failed to classify.
The process is not foolproof. It does not produce accurate
results. It is not precise. It is fully voluntary. Yet it is the
foundation of employment equity.
The government uses self-identification for implementation
of its employment equity in the public service and here too the
process fails miserably. For example, a voluntary
self-identification survey was recently sent to 1,700 employees
of the House of Commons. Only 23 per cent returned the survey.
What basis could the employer use to implement a policy such
as employment equity?
There could be a number of other reasons that could explain
alleged discrimination. Since self-identification is voluntary it
will not be precise. The process, as I have mentioned, is not and
should not be foolproof. There are social, cultural and
educational explanations that may have an effect upon the
disparities in society that have absolutely nothing to do with
discrimination.
A glaring example of the inadequacies of the voluntary
self-identification program were illustrated in a letter I read
recently in the Globe and Mail of February 28. I would like to
read part of it:
13016
Your editorial Time for a Debate on Employment Equity-argues that
``Canadians who oppose affirmative action must fight it through the ordinary
political process''.
But there is a more effective way to fight affirmative action. Those who
oppose it should simply indicate on their workforce surveys that they belong
to all of the designated groups. If even 10 per cent of those who oppose
affirmative action were to do so, then virtually every workforce would be
found to be adequately represented for employment equity purposes. This
would release employers from the obligation to meet quotas, allowing them to
hire the most competent applicants regardless of biology.
Current legislation does not define membership in the designated
groups-indeed, membership is mostly subjective. Employers are obligated to
accept employees' and applicants' self-identification as being correct.
Moreover, workplace surveys are meant to be confidential, and Canadian
human rights legislation prohibits employers from requiring employees or job
candidates to prove their biological status. So sabotaging the employment
equity bureaucracy in the way suggested is arguably not illegal and is
certainly without risk to either employees or employers.
Thus the problems associated with a statistical base such as
voluntary self-identification cannot be resolved. Therefore the
whole basis and foundation for employment equity is seriously
flawed and this certainly illustrates it.
The Reform Party believes in the true equality of all
Canadians regardless of their personal characteristics. Public
opposition to the bill is seen in the upcoming Ontario election
where two old line parties have moved closer to our position on
the issue.
The government would like us to believe that affirmative
action, as it would have it, would eliminate barriers and combat
a broad based disadvantage to certain groups. However, I
believe that legislative quota programs like employment equity
actually confer benefits or impose disabilities because of race
and formally divide people into racial definitions and racial
mindsets.
(1550)
Some of the strongest opponents I have heard regarding the
legislation have been those familiar with the realities of similar
programs elsewhere, such as in South Africa.
Legislated employment equity suggests to everyone,
including the individual involved, that the reason they got the
job was their race or disability and not their ability or aptitude.
Thus this kind of legislation cheapens the accomplishments and
efforts of individuals. It degrades individuals by conferring on
them a definition of victimhood. It separates Canadians into
competing subgroups while putting unnecessary burdens on our
national economy and on our good business practice sense.
We have a history of chequered motives and subversive
citizenship. We have a program that is based on flawed
assumptions of systemic discrimination. We have a denial of a
basic principle of merit with the introduction of quotas and
numerical goals and coercion and government interference
through reports, fines and intrusive government practices.
Our position as a country will best be served in the global
economy by market demands in the places of employment. Our
future and unity as a country will be best assured by ensuring
true equality of Canadians, not by job quotas but by the equality
of the personhood and the real abilities of all Canadians.
In summary, employment equity is seriously flawed and
conceptually flawed in practice. I encourage Canadians to
express their views on employment equity and Bill C-64 with
which Parliament is currently dealing.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first by way of comment, with respect to the witnesses
who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights
and the Status of Disabled Persons, let it be recorded that a list
was submitted by the Reform Party and many people on the list
declined the invitation to appear before the committee. It was no
fault of the committee.
Second, even at the last minute some witnesses cancelled out.
That again was beyond the control of the committee studying the
employment equity bill.
Third, the member said on the steering committee that we
would look at this in committee of the whole. To now fret over it
after the fact I leave to the imagination of the House.
The member said equality of opportunities may not
necessarily lead to equality of results. That is right. However
she failed to ask the question: What if the cost of the inability to
lead to equality of results is systemic discrimination? Would the
member agree that the best approach would not be on an
individual case by case basis but a systemic approach such as
legislation and policy initiatives of government?
The member kept on referring to preferential hiring. This is
the myth one perpetuates if one would like one's political
agenda to win, but it is not being honest with Canadians. To say
that it should only be based on the principle of merit and
qualifications as though people in designated groups, women,
visible minorities, persons with disabilities and First Nations
people have no qualifications and no merit.
Studies have shown that they have been discriminated against
for decades. Why would the member continue to insist that
numerical goals are the same as quotas? The bill before the
Chamber states in subclause 30(1):
No compliance officer may give a direction under section 23 and no
Tribunal may make an order under section 27 where that direction or order
(e) would impose a quota on an employer.
13017
(1555)
The bill is very clear that it is not about quota. If the Reform
Party would only pose this question to the Canadian people, I am
sure it would get the right answer.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer some of
the questions.
I actually sat on the committee. I find it interesting the chair
of the committee does not deny that 90 per cent of the witnesses
supported the legislation and there were others who were asked.
Of the 30-some people we suggested 4 came before the
committee.
It may indeed have been the case that some could not come or
that some cancelled out. We were not informed of that
beforehand. The fact the government now indicates that 90 per
cent of the committee supported legislation tells me it is using a
number not representative of Canadians to support something
for its own purposes. I find that objectionable. Those numbers
do not reflect Canadian society.
There was a question asked about systemic discrimination. I
find the term systemic discrimination quite objectionable. I
tried in my speech to express that it is a word that supports the
whole notion of employment equity but removes the necessity of
proving there was any discrimination in a particular case.
It puts a blanket over a hiring practice. The claim of systemic
discrimination allows an employer to discriminate against
groups not within the group. It compares employees as a group
with society as a group so that in individual cases there is no
reality necessary in terms of discrimination. I do not believe
discrimination is systemic. If there are individual cases of
discrimination they should be brought forward as individual
cases, as our motion states.
I did not deny there was merit in the categories included in the
legislation. Our party has said that there has to be equality of
opportunity. That means addressing education, advertising job
positions equally and fairly and access to jobs for all groups
designated or non-designated. Those are where government
legislation and government initiatives should be taking place,
not in determining the result.
As we give people access to these places, the marketplace will
reflect the true reality of the Canadian people. That is what is
important in the marketplace and for the good of the country.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
I am pleased to rise today to address the motion put forward
by my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley East. I cannot say I am
surprised that the hon. member and his party have chosen to
deplore the government's employment equity policy.
From the beginning of the hearings on Bill C-64, an act
respecting employment equity, held by the Standing Committee
on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons the
member and his party have been opposed to the principle and
practice of employment equity. They have gone so far as to
breach parliamentary tradition by going to the press with
complaints about the bill before the beginning of clause by
clause study of the bill by the committee.
Ostensibly the Reform Party was desperate to draw attention
to its political agenda. Frustrated by the lack of media coverage
of the press conference, it became more interested in dilatory
tactics than substantive debate during clause by clause study of
the bill.
I will now address point by point the motion before us. The
Reform Party claims that employment equity is unnecessary.
This could only be so if members opposite could show that the
Canadian workplace proportionately reflects the demographics
of qualified members of designated groups in the Canadian
workforce: women, visible minorities, First Nations peoples
and persons with disabilities. In fact documents show otherwise.
(1600)
The Reform Party claims the policy is ineffective. A study
done by the Conference Board of Canada on the impact of the
existing legislation shows that the major impetus for
employment equity initiatives by employers was the passage of
the 1986 Employment Equity Act.
The Reform Party claims the policy is unpopular. I counter
that witnesses before the committee studying the new
employment equity legislation, representing thousands and
thousands of Canadians, were nearly unanimous in their praise
of the thrust and strength of the legislation.
Moreover, it should be noted that equity in employment is
about justice, fairness, human decency and human dignity.
Employment equity as a policy and as a law is for all and
benefits all Canadians, workers and employers alike.
The Reform Party claims employment equity is intrusive. I
would counter that more than 90 per cent of the witnesses that
appeared before the committee welcomed the policy, welcomed
the legislation and said that it made good business sense.
Employers which appeared as witnesses included the
Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the
Canadian Manufacturers' Association and many more.
Witnesses from labour included the Canadian Labour Congress,
the Public Service Alliance, la Confédération des syndicats
nationaux among others. Designated groups which appeared as
witnesses included Women in Trades and Technology, the
Assembly of First Nations, the Council of Canadians with
Disabilities and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council among
others. These wit-
13018
nesses; employers, labour and designated groups, all welcomed
the employment equity policy of the government.
It should be noted that the non-designated group continues to
be hired and accounts for 55 per cent of the workforce according
to the latest figures from Statistics Canada.
The Reform Party claims that employment equity is
discriminatory. I counter that the bill explicitly aims to achieve
equality. Equality is the antithesis of discrimination.
The purpose of this act ``is to achieve equality in the
workplace so that no person shall be denied employment
opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability''. The
purpose is clearly stated in clause 2 of Bill C-64. Therefore, I
highly recommend that the Reform Party once more read the
clause, if not the entire bill. In fact, discrimination in hiring and
promotion is the very injustice the employment equity policy
and the attendant legislation seek to redress.
The Reform Party moves that ``this House recognize the
equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion
be based solely on merit''. I am pleased that at least on this score
the Reform Party has it right. It pays once in a while for the
Reform Party to heed government legislation and government
advice.
Bill C-64, the employment equity legislation which is before
the Chamber, specifically stipulates in clauses 6(b) and (c) that
the obligation to implement employment equity does not require
an employer to hire or promote unqualified persons and to
ensure that merit is fulfilled.
The Reform Party claims that discriminatory employment
practices could be more vigorously pursued on an individual
case by case basis. That is the same type of logic which says,
``We do not need more crime prevention; what we need is more
police action after crimes are committed. Forget preventing
crime, policing is all that counts. Catch the rascals and lock
them up''. In effect that is the logic of the Reform Party.
However, I am pleased to say it is not the policy of the
government. I am confident it is not the belief of the vast
majority of Canadians.
(1605)
I counter that a more appropriate approach where systemic
barriers to fair hiring practices still exist would be by way of
legislation and other government policy initiatives such as
education and training as was indicated by the Reform Party.
However, education and training alone are not enough.
Francine Arsenault, as chairwoman of the provincial
organizations on the handicapped, once said:
Disabled Canadians and other disadvantaged groups have worked long and
hard to improve our appalling rate of representation in Canada's workplace.
We have tried education and awareness programs. We have tried fostering
goodwill, yet little has changed. The real causes of discrimination are not
individuals but inflexible systems.
I pause here to call the minds and hearts of the Reform Party
members to this observation in the hope that they will change
their minds and hearts and withdraw the motion.
Employment equity legislation expresses the will of the
government that equity in employment is a priority and a right
for all Canadians qualified for a job, irrespective of race,
gender, origin or presence of disability.
How ironic and unfortunate that the motion from the Reform
Party has been introduced at this time when we are celebrating
National Access Awareness Week. This is a week during which
we specifically focus on the barriers which have prevented full
participation of persons with disabilities in community life,
including the workplace.
This is a week during which we reaffirm as a nation our belief
in equality of opportunities and results for all. This is a week
during which we resolve as a nation that we shall tear down the
barriers that limit full participation of all persons and supply the
necessary tools, including legislation, to facilitate equity in
employment. I ask, where is the heart of the Reform Party?
I say to the Reform Party, fear not reverse discrimination, fear
not employment equity policy, fear not employment equity
legislation, but fear that equity in employment for women,
visible minorities, First Nations people and persons with
disabilities remains an elusive national dream.
In conclusion, Canada shall continue to aspire at all costs and
work hard to realize this national dream.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are not fools because they may not follow along with
the presentation of my hon. colleague across the way.
A Gallup poll published in 1993 reflects on the comments this
gentleman has made. It showed that 74 per cent of Canadians
opposed government employment equity programs. The Ontario
government advertised a job vacancy in a government
newspaper with the explanation that the job competition was
limited to the following employment equity designated groups.
This is where Bill C-64 is going to take this country. The
designated groups were aboriginal peoples, francophones,
persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women. In other
words, who is excluded? That was in a government
advertisement. Is this where employment equity is going to take
us?
I would like this member's comments on the following two
studies. These studies were done in the labour market where it
was clearly indicated that no discrimination took place. The first
study was conducted by Arnold deSilva of the Economic
Council of Canada. On page 34 of the study he concluded: ``The
evidence goes against the view that there is systematic
discrimination against immigrants on the basis of colour''. On
page 37,
13019
the summary concludes: ``Persons who came from the third
world regions but who arrived here young enough to obtain all
their education and experience in Canada performed as well as
native born Canadians in nearly all the cases''. This study was
conducted in 1992.
(1610)
The results of another study by Daniel Boothman are: ``The
results of our job loss model show that women are less likely to
lose jobs than men, all else being equal. Visible minority status
had no significant effect on the probability of job loss''.
Another point on page 50 states: ``Being a woman increases
the probability of promotion in the model. This effect is
significant at the 10 per cent level. Visible minority status had
no significant effect''.
In the final statement: ``In closing, this study found no strong
evidence or a disadvantage for women and visible minorities in
movement between jobs''.
I would like to ask the member if he has studied and recorded
these views in his presentation.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot be fooled. I
have faith in our people.
The Reform Party has to be sure it has seen the questionnaire,
the subquestions and whether the explanations have been given
very well. That not being done, I will not comment further on
that point.
Second, he alluded to advertisements being posted limiting
hiring to certain designated groups. This is against the Canadian
Human Rights Act. This is not the intent of the legislation. Bill
C-64 will not condone such advertising. If the member has
knowledge of that he has an obligation to report it to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission and file a proper
complaint. I will be with him challenging that kind of
advertising.
The last point is that there is no discrimination now in the
workforce according to the study which I have not seen. I will
admit for the sake of argument in his reading of this that there
has been no discrimination against visible minorities. Let us
assume for the sake of argument it is a statement of fact. He said
the study was done in 1992. The present law was passed in 1986.
My conclusion is the law is working. Let us keep it to sustain
positive equality in Canada.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
fairly evident from any survey of any group of people that there
is no support for the government's bill among the population at
large. Survey after survey comes back stating that 80 per cent of
Canadians are opposed to bills of this type.
I ask the member who is the chairman of the committee
specifically about some things that happened there. Could this
be the reason why the government, in an agreement with the two
opposition parties, decided to take the bill after first reading
directly to committee?
The opposition parties thought there was going to be a fair
opportunity to review the bill on a clause by clause basis. Once
they got into committee they found that the chairman had
decided that debate was going to be restricted to five minutes per
clause which is completely out of touch with reality. Is this a fair
and open way to study legislation or is it just a way for the
government to slide things by so that the 80 per cent of
Canadians who are opposed to this bill do not know that the
government is sliding this one by them?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental rule in
law. If one relies on hearsay it is very dangerous. It is not my
recollection that this member had attended a meeting of our
committee. Perhaps I missed one.
Second, for him to say the chair decided on a five-minute
limit to debate on clause by clause, please check the record.
Mr. Abbott: Liberal members decided.
(1615 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The time has
expired for questions and comments. I would add that we are
treading very close to the line in terms of dealing with the actual
motion of the Reform Party today and the business of the
committee of the House. I would like to remind members to be
somewhat judicious. Resuming debate.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate
today. I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for sharing his
time with me.
It is a great honour to rise in the House to respond to the
motion put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East
which seeks to condemn the government for its policies in the
area of employment equity, in particular Bill C-64. To be
honest, I find the hon. member's motion hard to fathom since it
flies in the face of two of the most cherished core values we hold
as Canadians, justice and equality.
The member of the opposition is correct in one regard, namely
that this government is deeply committed to assuring equality of
opportunity for all Canadians. This should come as no surprise
for our red book clearly states that we seek a country where all of
us see ourselves as contributors and participants and not
liabilities and dependants. It further underlines our commitment
to building a Canada characterized by integrity, compassion and
competence.
13020
Cherishing those values as we do, it is little wonder we would
support employment equity which is, after all, simply a tool for
assuring fairness in daily life. That is what we seek to do in Bill
C-64.
Why is the bill needed? While some progress has been made
by the existing Employment Equity Act, recent statistics
indicate that much remains to be done. 1993 actually saw the
number of employees covered under the Employment Equity
Act drop by 4.27 per cent. That is almost 26,000 people. Much of
this was the result of the layoffs which flowed from the recent
economic downturn from which we have just emerged. Sadly,
members of the designated groups covered by Bill C-64 were
often the hardest hit.
While the number of people in designated groups increased,
fewer of them found themselves in the labour market. Among
those who did, most did not see the wage gains and promotional
opportunities enjoyed by other working Canadians.
Many women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities
and members of visible minorities still find themselves on the
bottom rung of the economic and social ladder. Of course this is
not just their problem. Rather, it is a problem for all of us since
restricting their participation in the economic life of our country
also damages the competitiveness of Canadian business.
It is increasingly obvious that a diverse workforce benefits
companies by providing them with improved access to a greater
number of qualified people. Indeed many businesses now
realize that recruiting, promoting and retraining people who are
representative of the Canadian population helps them provide
better and more responsive client service since diverse
experience and perspectives are a bonus, not a burden.
How does this bill present a balanced approach? Contrary to
what the hon. member and other members of his party might
think, the bill before us is not some piece of wild-eyed
radicalism totally divorced from the realities of economic life.
Rather it is a moderate and thoughtful document which seeks to
promote equal opportunity in the workplace without imposing
an onerous regulatory environment on businesses that are
already hard pressed in the increasingly competitive global
marketplace.
This balanced approach can be seen in all of the amendments
contained in the bill. For instance, while the act seeks to
encourage employers to address under-representation by
members of designated groups, it does not require them to hire
unqualified people, create new positions, create undue hardship
or contradict the merit principle.
Likewise, it does not impose a quota system as has occurred in
other jurisdictions. While we have listened to representatives of
designated groups who have called for an effective enforcement
mechanism, we have also listened to business representatives
who have asked that we not bury them under a mass of new
regulations and paper burden. We have developed a series of
amendments which combine practicality with justice. As a
result, we are all winners.
(1620)
At the same time, many of the amendments contained in the
bill represent little more than housekeeping. They will simply
extend to the public sector those requirements which have
already been placed on the private sector. This is only fair.
Finally, the act will broaden the mandate of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission to allow it to conduct audits of
public and private sector employers in order to verify and gain
compliance with the act. Even here we are ensuring a balance
with the establishment of the employment equity review
tribunal.
Canadians are justly proud of the core values which are at the
heart of our country. Central to our value system is a concern for
ensuring equal opportunity and justice for all Canadians. The
existing Employment Equity Act passed in 1986 has led to real
progress in ensuring greater equality of employment. Still,
much remains to be done. The act before us represents an
important step forward in assuring that all Canadians can enjoy
equal opportunity in employment and promotion. At the same
time it seeks to provide a vital balance between idealism and
economic reality.
The government's employment equity policies are not about
intrusiveness, discrimination or adding to the cost burden to
Canadian business as the hon. member's motion suggests.
Rather they are about fairness, about the government's
commitment to ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of
gender, race or physical attributes has a chance to fulfil his or
her potential, to get a rewarding job and to contribute to the
social and economic well-being of Canada.
Employment equity is not an impediment to progress. It is a
catalyst for progress in the workplace and a boost to the
competitiveness of Canadian companies in an increasingly
demanding global economy. Most of all, it is about putting into
practice the values that make us Canadian: fairness, justice and
equality for all. It is for this reason that I cannot support the
motion, but I will be supporting the legislation before the House
and would encourage all members to do likewise.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of questions for the member.
Obviously there is no time to get into the whole bill but he
mentioned that numerical targets were not quotas, that we were
not to worry because this was not about quotas.
Lyn McLeod said in the leader's debate with Bob Rae in
Ontario on May 18 that numerical goals are quotas, pure and
simple. I would like to know whether he agrees with the Liberal
13021
leader of Ontario who says that numerical targets are merely a
euphemism for quotas.
The RCMP do not call them quotas but this year the RCMP is
hiring 426 people. One hundred and twenty-five will be from
visible minorities, 125 will be females, 95 will be aboriginal and
the rest can be from society in general. Does the hon. member
think those are quotas or does he think they are something other
than quotas? They sound like quotas to me.
I have just the two questions. Does he agree with Lyn McLeod
and does he think the numbers I quoted from the RCMP sound
like quotas?
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr. Speaker, I
am genuinely surprised by the inability of the member's party to
address the question of the need for some collective redress to
the lack of representation.
I am an Atlantic Canadian. We have always believed a little
bit that in the nation we are on the outside. I have some
sympathy for those people who feel that the power structures at
play do not always work in their favour.
Everything I have read and have heard expressed by the
member's party in terms of where they were born speaks to
expressions like western alienation and so on. It seems to me
there should be some affinity between the member and his party
and those people for whom the system just does not work as well
as it does for others. I think it is political posturing on the part of
the member to draw in someone else's comments in some other
debate.
(1625)
Ultimately this is about a fundamental principle. We have to
understand that the system does not work equally for everybody.
I have heard it said by many people in the member's party that is
the case and that therefore certain actions have to be taken. I find
it unfortunate that a member representing a party that speaks of
this often would deny the same access to people for whom the
system obviously does not work as well as it does for someone
like me, a seventh generation, white, male Canadian.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has still left the question unanswered as to whether we
have quotas or whether we are simply looking at loosely defined
numerical goals.
I would like to enlarge on this just a little. I honestly believe
that in areas where we have not had these kinds of programs,
employment equity, quota systems, whatever you call it, that at
least in the area where I come from in Alberta, the number of
people employed in large organizations is roughly proportional
to the number of people who are there from the different groups.
It is just a rough observation which I think is true.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Through the eyes of the observer.
Mr. Epp: No, I am sorry, I believe it is true.
I would like the member to answer this question. Are quotas
the same as numerical goals? If not, how are they different?
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr. Speaker, I
am quite familiar with the issue of quotas, targets and so on. In a
previous life I was involved in the official languages policy in
the province of New Brunswick. A lot of the attempts made here
to try and characterize efforts to collectively address the
systemic weakness are always characterized this way. There are
always attempts to fix positions so they can then be thrown back
in the face of the government.
The answer is no. There is an objective, you try to meet but it
is not a quota.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Prince George-Peace River. I understand you will be splitting
your time. Could you indicate that to the chair?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not use the 20 minutes.
I welcome this opportunity to rise in debate and support the
motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley
East.
I am becoming more and more concerned about the direction
in which the government is taking Canada. The Liberal
government seems to think that it can legislate Canadian values
and social change. History proves that imposed solutions do not
gain broad acceptance. They are viewed with suspicion.
From the mail I receive, the mindset that dominates Ottawa's
policy shifts does not appear to reflect the values or convictions
of most Canadians living outside a few metropolitan centres. In
fact, I am not even sure it reflects the views of most people
living in Toronto or Ottawa.
This government is promoting the idea that society is
responsible for what people do with their lives. Somehow
personal achievement no longer has anything to do with
individual merit, initiative or effort but has more to do with
whether one falls into this government's definition of a group it
has singled out for special treatment. This is a misguided
attempt to right past wrongs. When I was young I was taught that
two wrongs do not make a right. Evidently Liberals have not
learned that lesson.
(1630)
Reform believes in equality of opportunity. Given the same
educational and employment opportunities, whether an
individual succeeds should be largely up to them. Each person
must
13022
accept responsibility for what they choose to do with their life,
be it pursuing a life of crime or having a lower standard of living
while they put themselves through university. When they get out
of school they have a right to expect equal treatment when they
look for work. Preferential treatment on the basis of your skin
colour is just as racist as discrimination. Employment equity is
by definition discrimination and therefore against the law.
Social change cannot be legislated. Previous Liberal attempts
at social engineering have been disastrous and have created
greater divisiveness in Canadian society. Past Liberal
legislation gave us multiculturalism which promotes our
differences instead of our similarities. It makes us hyphenated
Canadians and asks us to define ourselves in terms of skin
colour, country of our ancestors or, if all other categorizations
fail, language. We are not allowed to be just Canadian. The
government does not believe such a person exists.
Now that multiculturalism has made us focus on our
differences the government wants to institutionalize inequality
and preferential treatment. It wants to further divide the
workforce with a quota system that will replicate an artificial
division of the Canadian people based on arbitrary
characteristics unrelated to their ability to do the job. Equity is
not equality.
The hon. member for Western Arctic said earlier today special
treatment is not a departure from equality. How can special
treatment of entire designated groups lead to equality? Special
treatment by its very nature is not equality.
The same member said same treatment does not create
equality. I agree with that but not for the same reasons she said.
Canadians should be guaranteed equal opportunities. These
include education, equal employment opportunities and the
right not to be discriminated against for reasons unrelated to
their qualifications.
As the member must agree, given her own achievements, even
when we all receive the same treatment we do not all follow the
same paths in life. We do not end up running a corner bakery or a
multinational corporation, at least not all of us. We are different
and we do not all share the same goals. Siblings end up in
entirely different lines of work and levels of employment
despite the same treatment. Equal opportunity does not always
lead to equal results.
Every time the government decides there is a problem it tries
to solve it with more government regulations and inappropriate
misguided legislation. We see the same philosophy of over
regulation in the Liberal approach to crime control. Instead of
specifically targeting gun smugglers and criminals who misuse
firearms the government will force all gun owners to register.
This shotgun approach to problems does not work. It creates
more jobs for bean counters while the government desperately
hopes a criminal will register a gun or in the case of employment
equity a prejudiced employer will incriminate themselves when
filling out paper work.
I completely support the elimination of discrimination but we
cannot legislate attitudes and we cannot create equality through
legislation. Go after the law breakers. Do not make more rules
and red tape that do not directly address the problem. Social
engineering does not work.
Canadians want equality, not more groups with special rights
and privileges. Canadians want to end discrimination, not
extend it on a scale only the Liberal government could conceive.
Canadians want to succeed based on their personal merit and
achievements, not on the colour of their skin or some other
arbitrary classification the government has decided on.
A policy of employment equity will lead to inequality. It will
increase intolerance in our society and it will lead to greater
misunderstandings between people. The elimination of
intolerance and discrimination in society is a desirable
objection.
I question the way the government is going about it. I see the
end result as more intolerance. With employment equity how
will anyone in a designated group ever be certain they got where
they did because of their own efforts and hard work? Even if
they know they earned every promotion and every raise, how do
they convince jealous naysayers? When someone is bypassed
for a promotion will they believe it is because the other person
deserved it or will they blame employment equity? Will
employers be forced to defend every decision they make?
(1635)
With employment equity every promotion will be viewed with
suspicion, whether it is because the person was in a designated
group and other employees challenged their qualifications or
because the person was not in a designated group and the
government wants to know why the company did not promote a
designated person instead.
Private industry should have the right to hire whomever it
wants. However, I fully support prosecution where there is
evidence of systemic discrimination. No one should face
discrimination in the workforce. People should be hired and
promoted on the basis of personal merit. While it is true we have
not completely stamped out prejudice, there are other ways of
dealing with unfair hiring practices besides enforcing a quota
system. We should enforce laws which specifically target people
who engage in discriminatory hiring practices or employment
conditions.
By promoting employment equity the Liberal government has
admitted it has no faith these designated groups can make it on
merit alone and so it will coerce companies using quotas and
monetary penalties. Will such measures lead to even more
intolerance as a few disgruntled workers wrongly seize on
employment equity as the reason they were bypassed for a raise
they thought they deserved?
13023
Once again the government is promoting disunity by
highlighting differences instead of similarities. By forcing
employees to self-identify as a member of a designated group
the government perpetuates differences and, more important,
the perception of differences. An employment equity program
forces people to focus on the very things the government says it
is trying to eliminate. We want our society to disregard
characteristics not relevant to someone's ability to do their job,
but the government wants employers to emphasize those
characteristics as somehow related to whether someone should
get a promotion.
Companies will begin to look at employees as a number on the
way to fulfilling a particular quota, not as individual human
beings with dreams, families and abilities which transcend the
designation the Liberal government has imposed on them. As
the hon. member for Halifax stated earlier today in the House,
we cannot legislate attitudes. That is our point.
Canadians would support the elimination of discrimination
and prejudice in the workplace but they cannot support a costly
social engineering project which will institutionalize
discrimination and promote employment opportunities based on
physical attributes. Employment equity is not workable. It can
lead only to more intolerance and misunderstanding.
It is reassuring to see the government's commitment to
creating a fair job market. All Canadians want a level playing
field on which excellence is promoted. However, a look at the
government's current legislation shows a fundamental
weakness. It stops one step short of the top. One would expect
the government would seek to lead by example, so it is
somewhat baffling that Bill C-64 applies to every government
department except the office of the Prime Minister.
If the House really sees affirmative action as a way to promote
excellence, one would think it would rush to embrace its
application in the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister's
office plays a large role not only in shaping the agenda of
government and of Parliament but in shaping public opinion. If
the government really believes affirmative action programs
attract personnel of the highest calibre, it naturally follows the
principles of Bill C-64 should apply to the Prime Minister's
office.
Clause 4(1)(b) of the bill seeks to apply affirmative action to
the portions of the Public Service of Canada set out in part I of
schedule 1 to the Public Service Relations Act. Schedule 1 is a
fairly inclusive list of government departments and agencies
and includes the office of the governor general's secretary,
which provides policy and program assistance in the office of
His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada. It includes the
privy council office, which provides policy advice and analysis
to the office of the Prime Minister and to cabinet.
(1640)
When I note Bill C-64 applies to the office of the governor
general's secretary and to the privy council office, I am sure it
must be simply an oversight that the Prime Minister's office is
not covered.
Members will surely understand that if we intend to ensure the
promotion of true equity in the workplace we must start at the
top. If it is our goal to show Canadians that government now
holds high the torch of equality, what better way than to apply
Bill C-64 to the Prime Minister's office? Applying Bill C-64 to
the Prime Minister's office would show all Canadians
leadership truly starts at the top.
The Prime Minister's office could serve as an example to
other departments in showing how an enlightened affirmative
action program could contribute to an enhanced work
environment, foster harmonious workplace relations and
harness the benefits proponent of the increased employment
diversity promise.
The application of Bill C-64 to the PMO would further
produce a number of side benefits. It would give the Prime
Minister a true hands on experience both in devising and
implementing a productive affirmative action strategy in a
medium sized $5.5-odd million office. The Prime Minister's
office would get a true first hand view of the increased
administrative burden, if any, caused by this act. That
experience would undoubtedly prove useful if further
amendments to this bill were ever needed. Further participation
by the Prime Minister's office would give the Prime Minister
enhanced credibility when selling Bill C-64 to Canadian
employers.
The Prime Minister would get valuable insight into the
practical benefits and, more important, the challenges of Bill
C-64. It is so easy for Parliamentarians to pass a law that applies
to everyone but ourselves. The business maxim of walk the talk
speaks to the need for managers to roll up their sleeves and do
some of the dirty work.
On one hand there is a real sense of leadership when one's
boss shows he or she is willing to do the same job as the labourer
or technician. More important, many company presidents and
CEOs have found that actually spending a day in the shoes of the
worker has exposed them to challenges and benefits of the line,
so to speak, in very tangible ways. Therefore by way of analogy
this proposal makes sound business sense.
Participation by the Prime Minister's office would show all
Canadians who have experienced discrimination in employment
that they have a friend at the top. Due to the bill's application to
the Prime Minister's office all Canadians would see their
government really believes in the right of the disadvantaged to
participate in the workforce.
Earlier I mentioned how the Prime Minister's office plays a
large role not only in shaping the agenda of government and of
Parliament but in shaping Canadian public opinion. Given this,
13024
the Liberals should amend the bill and give the disadvantaged an
increased voice at the top which could play a vital role in
reducing many of the so-called systemic barriers many
Canadians face in the job market.
If they will not include the PMO what example are they
showing? If the Prime Minister's office is to be spared, why not
all private firms with budgets smaller than $5 million? How can
we as politicians mandate change on Canadians which we would
shirk from imposing on ourselves? How can we deal with this do
as I say, not as I do attitude?
Without the practical experience of Bill C-64 working in the
PMO how can we tell Canadian employers we are all working
together? How can we reverse discrimination in the hearts of
Canadians when the Prime Minister's office holds out a ``not
welcome here'' sign?
Reformers believe this ``not in my backyard'' philosophy is a
national curse. The House must show Canadians Bill C-64 has
been well thought out, is well intended and will be well managed
at every stage. Application of the bill to the Prime Minister's
office might ensure that, or it might prove the opposite.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
really enjoyed the speech by the member for Prince
George-Peace River.
It will be interesting to see if anybody grabs the bait. It was
mentioned somewhat in committee, just tossed out as an idea.
We will see if anybody picks up on the suggestion for the Prime
Minister's office sometime between now and when the bill gets
muscled through Parliament .Gratefully, I will not have to hold
my breath on that one, I do not think.
(1645)
I do have a couple of questions for the member. Earlier today
we heard from the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and
Status of Women that she was offended that I would talk about
hyphenated Canadians. The people opposite know that if any
party is against the term hyphenated Canadians it is the Reform
Party. We say all Canadians should be treated equally. We do not
care whether you are a recent immigrant, third generation or an
aboriginal person. We think all people should be treated equally.
Definitely the idea of hyphenated Canadians is repugnant to us.
I would like to get the member's opinion and check on what
the member is hearing back home in northern British Columbia.
The last census of Canadians that StatsCan brought forward
found there were over 700,000 Canadians who refused to
identify themselves as anything other than Canadian. They
would say: ``I am not a hyphenated Canadian of any kind. I am
just a Canadian''.
An hon. member: Good for them.
Mr. Strahl: I was probably one of them on that census. I am
sure that 700,000 and some refused to say: ``I am an English
Canadian, a French Canadian or a native Canadian''. They just
said: ``I am Canadian. That is all that I am''.
StatsCan is now going to change its forms to make sure this
does not happen again. It is going to make sure Canadians put
down an ethnic background so that we can get more statistical
information on which to base things like employment equity.
In the member's riding in northern British Columbia do
people there like to be known as Peace River Canadians, Prince
George Canadians, or do they generally just approach it as
straight, old Canadians? I would like the member's opinion on
whether he thinks this trend is an up and coming thing in Peace
River or whether it is kind of passé.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
constantly hear this question in my riding. I know it is a real
source of irritation with Canadians in the riding of Prince
George-Peace River. I suspect if we were to do a survey across
the country we would find that people right across the nation
find it offensive that they are required to document their lineage
or history when they want to be classed as Canadians. They find
it very demeaning.
That is why so many people will just put down Canadian,
regardless of what type of form StatsCan may come up with.
People are telling me they want to be classed as a Canadian.
They are proud of their heritage and proud to be Canadian. This
can be seen most predominantly with the new immigrants who
came here recently and went through the process of getting their
citizenship papers and becoming a citizen of Canada. Those
people in particular do not want to be associated with the past.
They want to be classed as Canadians. That is how they want to
be thought of and treated. It is how they feel they should be
treated when they apply for a job in the Canadian workforce.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to debate employment equity today. I
must admit I am somewhat confused that the subject has come
before the House again today. It was only on April 6 that we
debated a similar Reform Party motion.
Moreover, for well over a month, as the member proposing the
motion well knows, the Standing Committee on Human Rights
and the Status of Disabled Persons has been hearing testimony
on the existing Employment Equity Act and on Bill C-64, a new
act respecting employment equity. That draft legislation is
about to return to the House for further consideration. Yet today
the Reform Party has seen fit to raise employment equity again
in the most contentious terms.
13025
(1650 )
The Reform Party makes a serious error in its judgment, I
believe, of the capacity of the Canadian people to appreciate a
program that for eight years now has served to strengthen our
social fabric. With Bill C-64 it will continue to do so but in a
more fair and even-handed manner.
Let me first deal with several misrepresentations of the
employment equity legislation that I have heard beginning the
first thing this morning.
First, the member who introduced the motion today spoke
about the false assumption on which employment equity is
based, the assumption that somehow employers are systemically
discriminatory and are bad. That is not at all the assumption on
which the bill is based. I will be giving more concrete examples
later, but the bill is based on the facts that certain people in our
society have not had an equal opportunity in employment. They
have tended to be employed and to remain in the lowest paying,
least skilled jobs notwithstanding their abilities. They have not
progressed as others in society have done.
Employment equity is about giving people an equal
opportunity by not assuming motive but by simply asking
employers to look at why that pattern exists in their workforce.
If it does exist it asks what they can do to be more fair in making
sure that everybody has an equal opportunity.
Second, the member recommended that individual cases
could be settled through the courts and the human rights
tribunal. That is like saying there is an outbreak of a certain
epidemic in health care but we are going to solve that by sending
each one of those people to hospitals to be cured on an individual
basis and that we do not have to deal with the overall situation
that is causing the individual's illness. That is an expensive,
time consuming approach which does not solve the underlying
problem but simply perpetuates it.
Third, there has been some discussion about group rights
versus individual rights. When the facts indicate clearly to us
that people are discriminated against, whether intentionally or
not, and usually it is not intentionally, as a group, the only way
an individual can have equal opportunity is if we address the fact
that the group the individual belongs to is discriminated against.
The bill and the whole issue of employment equity is not
about group rights. It is about individual rights. It is about
recognizing that in our society certain groups, who happen to
represent the majority by the way, have not had an equal
opportunity. Until we solve the problem of disadvantages for the
group, no individuals in that group, except by rare exception, are
going to have an equal opportunity to fulfil their potential.
This is not about arbitrary division as that argument would
have us believe. Employment equity is in fact about treating
everybody not the same because everybody is not the same, but
treating everybody equally. It is about getting rid of those
divisions that say a certain kind of person is more suited to
management or to certain positions in our society. It is about
allowing people to flourish based on their own abilities and not
the colour of their skin, the shape of their body or their origins.
Employment equity has been described as coercive in nature,
as a setting of imposed quotas. I do not know if it is deliberate
misrepresentation, total misunderstanding or total deafness
because it has been explained often enough. Employment equity
in Canada as it exists and as it is intended to apply now to the
public service under the new legislation does not set quotas. It
specifically prohibits quotas.
What it does do is it says to employers that there have been
employment practices which have gone on for a long time.
Unfortunately they have had discriminatory results, even
though they were not intended to. We are asking employers to
look at their employment practices. We are asking them to get
rid of those things in their employment practices that are having
discriminatory effects and that are tending to favour one kind of
Canadian over others in terms of hiring, promotion, training
opportunity, advancement and higher salaries.
(1655)
The facts are indisputable that this is the situation for
Canadian employment and for Canadian employers. I want to
emphasize that all we are asking employers to do under
employment equity is to look at their own situation, to do a
self-examination and to say that they would like to do better, to
show where they would like to do better and how they are going
to do it.
Quotas are the American model which we have specifically
turned our backs on as Canadians. Quotas are enforced from the
outside and imposed from the outside. That is not what
employment equity in this country is about.
An hon. member: It is in the RCMP.
Ms. Catterall: It has been said by the other side that people
will feel stigmatized. Let me respond to that. Somebody just
referred to hiring in the RCMP. An earlier speaker laid out all
kinds of figures and asked for a response.
The fact is that in the year the member quoted, and the
member knows that very well because the information was given
to him by the human rights commissioner, 65 per cent of hirings
in the RCMP were white, able bodied males even though they
are not even half of the Canadian population. Of course the
member chose not to use that figure. Two-thirds of hirings
continue to be white, able bodied males which members on the
other side have tended to suggest in today's debate are going to
be disadvantaged by employment equity.
13026
Another point which has been made by the opposite side is
that people will feel stigmatized. People feel stigmatized right
now. People feel stigmatized when they come into a job in the
public service with the best qualifications and after 25 years
have not progressed.
People feel stigmatized when they are in clerical positions, 80
per cent of which are occupied by women. They see that women
do not even rise to the upper levels of the clerical category. They
are bypassed by others who are no more qualified but just
happen not to be female.
People feel stigmatized by the current situation which does
not allow them to be hired, promoted or given advancement
opportunities on the basis of their merit. They see themselves
categorized and kept at a lower level because they do not fit the
traditional model of who will succeed in our society.
Finally, I come to the matter of merit. Employment equity is
not the denial of the merit principle but the fulfilment of the
merit principle. The legislation the committee has been dealing
with is very clear about this. People should be hired solely on the
basis of merit. Employment should be colour blind, gender blind
and size blind. It should only look at what a person is capable of
doing.
The facts are clear that has not been the pattern in Canadian
employment. Let me give some facts. Members of the
designated groups continue to be at a distinct disadvantage in
the workplace. Far from being a threat to those who complain of
reverse discrimination, women, aboriginal peoples, visible
minority members and persons with disabilities still lag far
behind in initial hiring, promotion opportunity and pay rates.
In March, Statistics Canada reported that the primary reason
women earn far less money than men, just 78 per cent of what
their male colleagues earn, is blatant discrimination. Even
factoring in work experience, education and demographics,
there is no explanation for the wage gap other than gender bias.
What other than prejudice can explain the fact that persons
with disabilities experience an unemployment rate twice the
national average? Is it less qualification or less education? No, it
is not. The unemployment rate of persons with disabilities with
university degrees is more than twice that of white males with
the same qualifications.
(1700)
These are facts I know the other side does not want to hear but
it will hear them. Even among those who are working the
perception seems to be that people with disabilities are capable
only of clerical, sales and service jobs. Eighteen per cent of
university educated, physically challenged workers are in those
occupations compared with just 11 per cent of white, able
bodied males with university degrees.
Statistics show there are many qualified members of
designated groups. Visible minorities are better educated than
Canadians in general, not less educated. Eighteen per cent have
at least a university degree compared with 11 per cent of the
Canadian population.
While visible minorities represent 8.8 per cent of the
population over 15 years of age, in 1990 they accounted for
almost 11 per cent of the university graduates. They earned 13
per cent of the masters degrees, 20 per cent of the doctorate
degrees and yet too few of these highly educated, highly skilled
potential workers are offered jobs. Their hiring rates have
actually decreased steadily since 1990 from 10.4 per cent to just
8.4 per cent. Last year in the public service alone 11 per cent of
applicants were a visible minority but represented only 2.7 per
cent of hirings.
Aboriginal people, surely among the most disadvantaged of
any group, are also too often shut out of the job market. Despite
the fact that more aboriginal people than ever before are
university educated their unemployment rate stands at 7 per
cent, almost double the rate for white males with university
degrees.
These are the tip of the iceberg of the statistics that could be
quoted today. It is interesting that the vast majority of those who
testified before the standing committee, including employers
who have been under the Employment Equity Act for eight years
now, describe employment equity as a sensible and balanced
measure. Even the few who oppose the draft legislation did not
resort to the sort of inflammatory and misrepresentational
language found in this resolution and in the debate.
Canadians do have an excellent understanding of what
equality is all about. They appreciate that for there to be a
harmonious and well balanced society all its members must
have an opportunity to contribute as well as share in the benefits.
That is what employment equity is all about.
[Translation]
The justification behind employment equity is that it permits
people to be given equal consideration when employment
possibilities arise. Its aim is not to give privilege or advantage to
anyone in the selection of candidates for employment. To say
otherwise indicates a complete misunderstanding of the
principles concerned and the way it works.
[English]
The fundamental aim of employment equity is to ensure no
one is denied access to a fair chance at employment and
promotion opportunities for reasons unrelated to abilities. To
claim otherwise represents either a serious misunderstanding or
a deliberate misrepresentation.
13027
Employment equity exists to identify current disadvantages
in the employment system for the benefit of all Canadians and to
provide fair and equal employment opportunities. To pretend
fairness and equality are fully operational in employment in
Canada today is simply to ignore the facts.
Employment equity seeks to achieve the diversity in the
workplace found in society. That involves the removal of
barriers to employment opportunities. These barriers are most
often not deliberate and are frequently buried in systems and
long standing practices. Employment equity seeks to eliminate
what is called the adverse effect which flows from conditions of
requirements for employment that are not necessary and not
intended to discriminate but do have a discriminatory effect.
(1705 )
The other aspect of employment equity is to put in place
measures which encourage equitable access to opportunities for
employment and advancement. This may mean training
positions so those who are disadvantaged can compete on an
equal footing. It is important for sound management that full use
be made of all human resources available.
Unfortunately what we have been doing by having a less than
equitable workplace both in the private sector and in the public
sector is denying the Canadian economy and the public service
the opportunity for the very best to be hired, to be trained, to be
developed, to serve in the highest positions they can and to
provide the very best to the private sector and the public sector
so that both can excel.
[Translation]
We must remember that the make-up of Canada's labour force
is in a state of constant flux. Major demographic changes are
helping to create an increasingly heterogenous labour force.
Women, native people, people with a disability and members of
visible minorities now represent the vast majority of new
arrivals on the labour market.
[English]
If we are not making full use of the full diversity of our
growing workforce, we are handicapping ourselves as a nation.
It has been convincingly demonstrated that diversity in the
workplace makes good business sense. Witnesses who appeared
before the human rights committee reasserted this; witnesses
who found employment equity to be an advantage to them in
improving their human resources practices. Experts have long
considered workforce diversity as a competitive advantage in
today's global economy. It leads to increased productivity. It is
to the benefit of companies and governments to remove the
barriers to the full development of diversity in the workforce.
As I said earlier, it is important to remember that although we
tend to speak of diversity in terms of groups the focus is on the
individual. It is not the group which is recruited as a filing clerk,
it is the individual. However it is not necessarily the individual
who is denied promotion opportunities. The individual may be
constrained because they happen to belong to a particular group.
Surely we all want to change that in society and in our places of
employment.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's motion presupposes that
employment equity follows selection on the basis of criteria
other than merit. Allow me to state that this is not the case.
[English]
This is about a truly merit based system. For 75 years we have
prided ourselves in this country and in our public service on
having a merit based system designed to ensure people are hired
based on their ability to do the job. Had we had a truly merit
based system we would not have to worry about employment
equity.
I will be happy when we no longer need an employment equity
law. I will be happy when I can say that anybody has a fair and
equal opportunity to compete based only on their ability to do
the job. Unfortunately that is not the kind of world we have and
certainly not the kind of public service we have. That is why I
believe it is important to expand the Employment Equity Act.
Really that is what is being done. We are not introducing
anything new. We are making some administrative changes to
employment equity. The big thing we are doing is applying it to
the public service. That is only fair and just.
(1710 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind members if they
want to seek the floor they should be in their own seats.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport-the
environment.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested
that the governing party is so persistently raising the question of
the majority of testimonials its bill has received in committee.
This sounds more like an admission. These witnesses are
supposed to be more or less balanced. Members have been
saying they padded their witness list, which we knew, but it is
very interesting to hear it brought out in the House and
emphasized in that way.
13028
This pedigreed Heinz 57 Canadian looks somewhat askance at
Bill C-64. It has its origin in the noblesse oblige of middle class,
predominantly lily white Canadians who know what is best for
everybody.
It certainly does not fit the viewpoint of some notable
Canadians like Neil Bissoondath or Dr. Rais Khan or some not
so new Canadians like Sammy Chung. It seems to fit the
viewpoint of the Liberal government and too many people from
any other part of society. It is condescending, patronizing and
infers people in designated groups have less merit than
non-designated persons and therefore cannot make it on their
own. That is reprehensible.
I have two questions for the hon. member. Did she in private
life and does she here now in her own office consciously practise
employment equity? Does she accept what appears to be the
standard Liberal philosophy that the best government is that
which interferes most in the lives of ordinary Canadians?
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, when I was asked that question
on the last Statistics Canada census under ethnic origin I put
mongrel.
I do practise employment equity in my office. It is pretty hard
when it is only three and a half people. The young man in my
office said: ``I am glad we do not have employment equity
around here or I would not have a job''. I said: ``I should explain
to you that I was looking around for a young man because I felt I
have had a predominance of women in my office for some time
and so you are the result of affirmative action''.
The member fails to understand that I believe in the
fundamental Liberal principle of the dignity and right of each
human being to be considered on their merits and to be respected
for themselves. I do not see that happening necessarily in
employment. I see very capable people for reasons that have
nothing to do with their qualifications or abilities not having the
opportunity.
When I was on city council I asked our bus company why bus
drivers had to be six feet tall. It said it was so they could reach
the pedal. I said that meant most women could not qualify, most
orientals could not qualify and no short person could qualify.
That was pretty discriminatory. I asked what height had to do
with it when what it wanted was someone who could reach the
pedal; why not find out if a person could reach the pedal instead
of measuring how tall they are. We changed that because it made
sense to change it. Until then we had made sure a lot of very
good bus drivers never had a chance to get hired.
The same kind of false criteria for policing have made sure a
lot of very capable Canadians never had the opportunity to be
police officers. It is about getting rid of those kinds of attitudes
which have not allowed people to be considered on their merits.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.15 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant
to Standing Order 81.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 224)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)-41
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
13029
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-183
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bonin
Bouchard
Canuel
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacLaren
Marleau
Murphy
Ouellet
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
(1745 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
have voted with the government.
[Translation]
The House resumed from May 18 consideration of the motion
that this House deplore the federal government's delay in
responding to Quebec's demands with regard to the education of
young Aboriginals in the Quebec North amounting to $119
million, to the compensation of $135 million under the 1991-92
stabilization program and to the $79 million claim for expenses
incurred during the events at Oka in the summer of 1990.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to the order
adopted Thursday, May 18, 1995, the House will now proceed to
the taking of deferred division on the motion by Mr. Bernier
(Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) regarding the business of
supply.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 225)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-38
13030
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young
Zed-187
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bonin
Bouchard
Canuel
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacLaren
Marleau
Murphy
Ouellet
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
(1755)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived.
_____________________________________________
13030
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the motion that Bill C-91, an act to
continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the
name Business Development Bank of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask it, I think you
would find unanimous consent for the members who voted on
the previous motion to be recorded has having voted on the
motion now before the House in the following manner: Liberal
members will be recorded as voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members will be voting nay.
13031
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members vote no,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I misread the box in which I had the
answer. The Reform Party votes yea, not nay, except for those
members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mrs. Wayne: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 226)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young
Zed-187
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-38
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bonin
Bouchard
Canuel
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacLaren
Marleau
Murphy
Ouellet
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
13032
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Industry.
* * *
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the second reading stage of Bill C-82, an
act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will vote against
this bill.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote nay,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
caucus present today vote yea on this matter.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 227)
YEAS
Members
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
13033
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)-79
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bonin
Bouchard
Canuel
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacLaren
Marleau
Murphy
Ouellet
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6 o'clock, the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
13033
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) moved that Bill
C-248, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the
Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Employment Act
(whistleblowing), be now read the second time and referred to a
legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-248 is to protect
against retaliation employees acting in good faith and in the
public interest who report reprehensible practices by their
employers, particularly when public health and safety are at
issue.
This bill applies solely to public sector employees under
federal jurisdiction. It is based on two fundamental principles.
(1805)
The first principle is to encourage federal public servants to
report institutional or individual actions or practices that would
cause a specific and substantial danger or prejudice to public
health, safety or welfare, or entail considerable or unjustified
public spending.
[English]
The second principle without which the first one cannot be
serviced is the protection of employees against employers'
reprisal measures in retaliation for disclosures done in
accordance with the bill's provisions.
[Translation]
Implementing the two principles underlying this bill requires
a dual mechanism. The legislation must provide, first, for the
filing of complaints and then, of course, for the protection of
employees. To that end, Bill C-248 proposes an amendment to
the Canadian Human Rights Act that would give the commission
responsible for enforcing this act the power to receive and
examine complaints of illicit practices and to rule on their
admissibility.
In addition, Bill C-248 would empower the commission to
cancel any retaliatory action by an employer against a
whistleblower acting in good faith.
[English]
Bill C-248 answers the expectations of Canadian citizens and
of many Canadian organizations.
[Translation]
The people want the federal government to reduce waste and
end all illicit practices. To them, it is a matter of government
openness and federal institutional ethics.
Allow me to quote from the 1995 auditor general's report:
``Canadians are concerned about integrity in government and
they have the right to expect the highest ethical standards in
their governments. Leadership by members of Parliament,
ministers, and deputy ministers is critical to maintaining ethical
standards and performance in government''.
And the auditor general adds, and I quote: ``If Canadians do
not trust their governments to act ethically, governments will
find that their actions have less and less legitimacy and
effectiveness. Thus, we believe that it is important to discuss the
ethics in government and to take action to maintain and promote
ethics in government''.
You can see why Bill C-248 now before us is a good bill for
the government, for its employees and particularly for the
public. I would like to comment briefly on the various clauses of
the bill.
Let us first consider the first six clauses of the bill. The
purpose of these provisions is to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act. Clause 1 would add a new provision to the Canadian
Human Rights Act, by which it would become a discriminatory
practice to discharge, suspend or impose a financial penalty on
an employee, or to directly or indirectly differentiate adversely
13034
in relation to an employee in retaliation for a disclosure in
connection with a complaint made in good faith by the employee
pursuant to the provisions of our bill.
The same clause also suggests that an employee shall be
presumed not to act in good faith where, in making a disclosure,
the employee violates any act of Parliament or rule of law
protecting privileged communications, unless the employee can
prove on a balance of probabilities that the violation was
prompted by reasonable concerns for the public health or safety.
In clause 2, we propose that section 40 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act be amended to encourage employees who
have reasonable grounds to do so to bring their concerns
regarding employer misconduct to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission. The commission would be required to maintain a
confidential registry of all complaints.
(1810)
Clause 3 proposes to amend section 53(2) of the Canadian
Human Rights Act in order to empower the Commission to roll
back retaliatory measures by an employer against a
whistleblower when the human rights tribunal deems it
appropriate.
Clause 4 proposes to add to the Act a new section stating that
no person shall discharge, suspend or impose a financial penalty
on any employee in retaliation for a complaint or for a
disclosure.
Clause 5 proposes to amend section 60(1) of the Act to include
a reference to the new section 59.1 so that a person who
contravenes this new section would be guilty of an offence for
which he would be liable on summary conviction to the
punishment set out in the Act.
Clause 6 proposes to replace paragraph (3) of section 61 of the
Act by new paragraphs (3) to (7). Where a tribunal established
by the Commission finds that a complaint is substantiated or
that there are reasonable grounds to believe it true, these
paragraphs would compel the Commission to report the finding
to the Speaker of the House so that he may refer it to the
appropriate committee.
Clause 7 proposes an amendment to the Canada Labour Code.
This clause would amend the Canada Labour Code by adding
two paragraphs after subsection (1) of section 240. These two
paragraphs stipulate that retaliatory discharges for bona fide
whistleblowing shall be considered unjust dismissals for the
purposes of that Act.
Finally, clause 8 proposes an amendment to the Public Service
Employment Act. Under this clause, the oath or solemn
affirmation taken by a public servant in respect of his employer
would be qualified as follows: it shall not be deemed to be a
breach of the oath or solemn affirmation for an employee to
make a disclosure in good faith regarding the employer's
misconduct.
[English]
Since the first reading of the bill in May 1994, which was a
year ago, several organizations representing some 200,000
federal civil servants have contacted my office to offer support
as well as valuable comments.
[Translation]
Various organizations have commented that the bill should
contain stronger measures. One of the areas they singled out was
complaint registration. I will elaborate on these improvements
later.
In its recent publication, Breaking the Silence, the
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada stressed
the urgency of bringing in an initiative like Bill C-248.
In its report called ``In the Public's Interest'', which was a
summary of what its membership said at its hearings, the Public
Service Alliance of Canada, which alone represents over
150,000 public servants, also recommended implementing a
measure like the one contained in this bill.
It is also worth noting that parliamentarians and political
parties have also spoken in favour of legislation in the area
mentioned above. For example, during the 34th Parliament, a
New Democrat member introduced a bill, which made it to
second reading, which was for all intents and purposes
equivalent to Bill C-248. At that time, two Liberal members,
one of them the ethics critic, the other, human rights critic,
enthusiastically supported the principles in the bill. The bill was
debated in February 1992.
Might I add that in 1991, the official opposition's critic for
government administration declared that it was imperative to
implement a policy to adequately protect public servants who
bring wastage to the light of day. In the past, hon. members like
the former Liberal who is now a senator, Jean-Robert Gauthier,
the former New Democrat member for Skeena, Jim Fulton, and
the former Conservative minister, Alan Redway, all proposed, in
one form or another, legislative measures along the lines of Bill
C-248.
(1815)
For its part, the Reform Party has always insisted on
transparency in the federal government and the elimination of
waste of public funds. In this regard, the Reform member for St.
Albert said the following on May 11 in the House in a question to
the President of Treasury Board:
Given the fact that a notable proportion of public servants would not report such
unethical behaviour, will the government introduce legislation to protect
whistleblowers?
13035
My colleague from the Reform Party was referring to chapter
1 of the latest auditor general's report which indicates that
public servants are somewhat fearful about reporting practices
that contravene the government's ethics guidelines.
The members of our political party, the Bloc Quebecois, at its
first general council on June 18, 19 and 20, 1993, recommended
to the parliamentary wing that it ensure legislation providing for
protection of public servants who blow the whistle be tabled in
the House as soon as possible.
[English]
It therefore appears that all parties in the House have in recent
years or weeks given their support to a measure like the one
proposed by Bill C-248. Hence there is ample reason for the
House to consider Bill C-248 as votable.
However, to make the bill votable requires unanimous
consent of the House. Without unanimous consent the bill,
which is really expected by the Canadian public, will not go any
further.
[Translation]
This means, therefore, that, without the unanimous consent of
this House, unions, management, organizations, groups, in fact
everyone will be prevented from expressing their opinions on
the measures proposed in Bill C-248.
[English]
Acknowledging the unanimous support of all parties for a
number of years relative to the necessity of the whistleblowing
legislation, acknowledging also the obvious necessity of legal
protection for good faith whistleblowers, and acknowledging
the inescapable necessity for the bill to be votable if it is to be
discussed in committee before coming back at third reading, I
will ask members of the House to unanimously accept the bill as
votable. I will make the request prior to the end of this period.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address this bill, which is a very laudable initiative.
Indeed, even though the government may have some
reservations about it, the proposed legislation includes many
good points and we must take a very close look at it. I sincerely
hope that we can pursue this debate.
[English]
One of the stated purposes of the bill is to provide for
appropriate sanctions against retaliation or retaliatory
discharges by public sector employers of employees who ``blow
the whistle'' or report a serious misconduct of their employers.
Bill C-248 would, it is claimed, protect employees acting in
good faith and would recognize there are times when it is in the
public interest to encourage whistle blowing, especially if
public health or safety were at issue.
[Translation]
It is important to remember that the idea is to improve public
health and safety.
[English]
Let me say at the outset that I am most interested in any
proposal that would lead to improvements in the way
government programs are delivered that would lead to greater
efficiencies and effectiveness and that would lead to the
elimination of waste, mismanagement or misconduct.
[Translation]
This idea is a basic principle which we must support.
[English]
At the moment there are a number of legislative provisions
with complementary policies and guidelines that have
application in this area. I am interested in how they are working,
how they can be improved and how the bill before us today could
lead to improvements in these areas.
It is with this in mind that I have reviewed and now comment
upon the bill before the House today.
(1820)
[Translation]
Here are my comments, along with some specifics.
[English]
One of the clauses contained in the bill proposes amendments
to section 23 of the Public Service Employment Act. This
section requires every deputy head and employee, before
becoming a member of the public service, to subscribe to the
oath or affirmation of allegiance and the oath or affirmation of
office and secrecy, the latter being set out in schedule III of the
present act. Under Bill C-248, which restates the wording of
section 23 as it now stands, two lengthy new clauses would be
added qualifying the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy.
One of these clauses refers directly to the administration of
section 40(1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. No change
would be contemplated with respect to the oath or affirmation of
allegiance, though any misconduct that could constitute
betraying it may well pose a serious problem as abuse of the oath
or affirmation of office and secrecy.
The oath or affirmation of allegiance is covered by the Oath of
Allegiance Act. It prescribes a form by which every person in
Canada who, either of his or her own accord or in compliance
with any lawful requirement made of him or her or in obedience
to the directions of any act or law in force in Canada, except the
British North America Act and the Canadian Citizenship Act,
desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have it administered.
13036
The prospective deputy head or employee of the public
service must before assuming office affirm and swear to be
faithful and bear true allegiance.
Confidentiality is required of all federal public servants by
virtue of the Official Secrets Act and by the oath or affirmation
of office and secrecy taken by all public servants on entering the
service. The prospective employee swears or affirms that he or
she will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that evolve upon
that person by reason of public service employment and not
without due authority disclose or make known any matter that
comes to the individual's knowledge by reason of such
employment.
Of course it must be recognized that major departures from
existing practices in tried and true legislation could have
important implications for the future well-being of the public
service.
[Translation]
This is something which must be carefully examined. If were
to go ahead with the proposals contained in this bill, would we
experience problems with some of them?
[English]
It is necessary to determine the precise nature of the problems
that are believed to exist or might exist, in view of those
proposing Bill C-248, to ascertain precisely the dimensions and
nature of the systems that would be required were abuses to
occur and how they might best be handled. The means for
resolving any problem that might arise in this area under present
legislation and regulations should be examined carefully in
order not to duplicate or complicate unduly existing measures
that inhibit or permit various actions. These include those
inherent in the judicial system, the current system of checks and
balances in existing legislation, regulations, policies and
guidelines, as well as in our open system of government and
strong voice of the media.
In examining this proposal for major legislative change, it
must be recognized that there is already some legislation
covering the abuse of authority and responsibility by public
servants at all levels. Paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code,
for instance, makes it an offence for any official or employee of
the public service to demand, accept, offer or agree to accept
from a person dealing with the government any reward,
advantage or benefit either directly or indirectly through anyone
else for his or her own benefit without appropriate
authorization.
Members will know that it is the duty of public servants and
there are disciplinary and legislative tools available to ensure
that they comply to be honest, efficient, effective and loyal in
carrying out their responsibilities and managing the resources of
the public service.
Employees are expected to inform their superiors of any
seeming impropriety and to suggest ways of improving public
services. Indeed, the incentive awards program recognizes
exceptional contributions to the public service.
(1825)
There are sanctions as well in place now to prevent, avert or
penalize proven dishonourable conduct, criminal actions, waste,
extravagance, discrimination or abuse of trust. As you will
appreciate, Mr. Speaker, there are already a number of sanctions
and legislation in place covering the actions of concern to
whistleblowers and to provide recourse for public servants
against unfair treatment.
Canada is already known for having one of the finest public
services in the world. It is critical that employees and managers
recognize the importance of identifying problems and of
working together to resolve them.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to comment on the
proposals for legislative changes presented by the hon. member
in Bill C-248.
[Translation]
I support this bill in principle, and I sincerely hope that we can
continue to discuss it. As I just mentioned, some mechanisms
are already in place. It is up to us to decide whether to go any
further. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the
proposed bill.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to deal with this very important subject
about whistleblowing legislation. I am pleased also to see that
the President of the Treasury Board on May 13 mentioned that
he is still open to the idea of whistleblowing legislation. He is
not convinced yet that it is necessary. I am pleased to see that he
is open to the idea. Certainly as my colleague mentioned earlier,
the Reform Party feels that any time we can open up government
and open up the process we would be in favour of that.
Bill C-248, having to do with the rights of so-called
whistleblowing, has been raised several times as private
members' business in this House over the last decade or so.
Unfortunately, it has not been raised by the government of day,
past or present, and that is a shame.
There is a very old proverb I learned when I was a child. I
know, Mr. Speaker, you will be interested in this one. I believe in
it and I hope every member of the House subscribes to it as well.
I try to follow it in my own life and it has done me nothing but
good when I manage to follow it, even though it sometimes
hurts. The simple old proverb goes like this: ``Honesty is the
best policy''.
13037
I have a question to ask members today. Is honesty really the
best policy? If it is, and I believe that it is, we should develop
institutions to protect honesty, to encourage honesty, to deter
dishonesty and to even punish dishonesty when we find
evidence of it.
In general, the Criminal Code and other statutes of Parliament
require it, but very few provide an incentive for government
organizations to be honest and not only honest but safe and
frugal with taxpayers' dollars as well. I therefore agree with the
intent of Bill C-248. It provides a mechanism for employees to
demonstrate these qualities. It would help the government and
the private sector to be honest by placing before it the possibility
that dishonesty could be exposed.
Allow me to quote from an article in the Journal of Canadian
Public Administration. It puts it well. It states:
There is solid evidence to show that, in the absence of an effective
whistleblowing mechanism, employees have suffered emotional and physical
turmoil in trying to deal with knowledge of fraud, conflicts of interest,
rampant waste, pollution violations, and other illegal or unethical activities.
Companies have a duty of care to provide such a mechanism to assist ethical
employees.
Employees, who have real concerns and who make the
wrongdoing public, suffer real problems in the workplace as a
consequence. The Association of Mental Health in Maryland did
a study on whistleblowers in the late 1980s found that 82 per
cent of whistleblowers experienced harassment after exposing a
wrongdoing, 60 per cent were fired from their jobs, 17 per cent
eventually lost their homes and 10 per cent reported they had
attempted suicide. So there are serious repercussions by not
accepting the word of a whistleblower or by persecuting them
afterwards.
Even with these problems, whistleblowing means savings for
the American government. In 1980 the U.S. government began a
hotline for the American public service. The government
received 94,000 telephone calls in the first 10 years of
operation, 1,100 calls were substantiated and $20 million was
saved. The cost of the hotline was minuscule in comparison to
those savings.
(1830)
There are some dangers in this type of policy. It may be used
irresponsibly by people who have their own axe to grind or
people who are just plain disagreeable and want to cause trouble
and headaches for honest employers by alleging things that
simply are not true and then escape by hiding behind a law.
The idea I want to get across today is of controlled
whistleblowing or a mechanism by which whistleblowing
legislation can be passed that protects all parties involved. We
must have the right to expose illegalities, the gross abuse of
funds or a significant risk to public health or safety within limits
that would protect employers and, in the case of Parliament,
ministers of the crown and public service managers.
I want to suggest what might be part of an ideal act of
Parliament. Then I want to compare that ideal with the bill
before us. Ideal whistleblowing legislation should define the
nature and limits of the activity that would be protected by such
legislation specifying the gravity of wrongdoing to be exposed. I
admit this would not be easy.
For instance, an employee may want to expose a fellow
employee for being a couple of minutes late one morning
because he is angry at him for some unknown reason. The law
would have to be designed in such a way that it would be kept
from degenerating into a sort of informer's paradise. The
legislation probably would specify some type of internal
process which must be followed before it would be legal to go
through the public whistleblowing activity. It is only fair that an
employer be able to clean up his act before getting tarred in the
press.
Ideal legislation would specify public whistleblowing rather
than leaked documents as well. Leaks are the curse of any
minister's existence. If I was a minister I would not appreciate
leaked documents either. However, whistleblowing legislation
would not protect leaked documents unless it was one of those
concerns that I mentioned earlier about gross misconduct or
something. Public servants are expected to keep documents
confidential at all times and that should continue under any
legislation.
I like the idea of an employee coming forward in a forthright
manner through proper protected channels if it is necessary to
expose things.
Legislation should contain some kind of statute of limitation
so that employees could not try to get revenge on certain people
by exposing things that happened long after the employee has
left the employer.
I also think the act must create an incentive system for
legitimate whistleblowers. This is another difficult area and I do
not claim to have all the answers. It is difficult enough for
whistleblowers to come forward even with the protection that
the President of the Treasury Board says is in place already. We
see it is very difficult to get them to come forward.
The United States has the false claims act. Under it
whistleblowers receive 25 per cent of the savings of any
whistleblowing benefit they unearth. Over the first six years of
the operation of the act, 407 lawsuits were filed and 37 were
settled for a total of $147 million in savings. The average
whistleblower received $400,000.
I have considerable hesitation in supporting this type of high
priced incentive to whistleblowers. However, if this is referred
to committee, the committee should investigate whether there
13038
should be some sort of a monetary incentive or public
recognition or some kind of paper recognition. Some sort of
incentive should be investigated in committee to see if it has
some validity on the Canadian scene.
There also needs to be legal protection for legitimate
whistleblowers, including confidential advice for public
servants and an appeal process for those who are harassed or
fired. For that we need an independent body which would act as
sort of a place of sober second thought. I am not going to suggest
the Senate but we need something that would give an employee
confidential advice on whether his or her concern constituted a
legitimate exposure and so on.
(1835 )
This independent person or office, something like an
ombudsman or an independent ethics counsellor-emphasis on
the independent-would also act as a repository for the
information that was revealed. Anyone could come and receive
that information. It would be a very popular office indeed. I
know many public servants have been in contact with me about
the need for this legislation.
If it was done in this way it could be exposed in a
non-partisan, orderly way that would protect the employee
concerned and also protect the government or other employer by
suppressing frivolous or mischievous claims such as the one I
mentioned earlier about someone overstaying a coffee break or
something.
Next we would need an appeal process where an employee
who was being harassed or who was fired could go. We need
something there. Investigations could be conducted and
reparations made. However there would also have to be a
companion law that would punish or somehow discipline an
employee for publicly exposing things for which they have
given an oath not to expose. For example, they would still have
no right to expose confidential documents from the cabinet and
so on. We have to make sure under this legislation that
employees do not feel they have the right to expose what by
necessity must be confidential.
How does Bill C-248 measure up? I have mentioned several
things that could be fleshed out in the bill. I find the bill is like a
shell. It has the skeleton of some very good ideas. It is not
specific enough in many areas. For example, there are no limits
specified as to the time of reporting, the gravity of the offence to
be reported or even the kinds of things an employee could
report.
We should investigate whether there should be an incentive
system of some kind which is not mentioned in the bill. We
should do something to encourage the natural inertia of the bill
against whistleblowing and jump start it. Maybe some sort of
incentive program would help to do that.
I am not convinced the Canadian Human Rights Commission
is the best body to solve this problem. Canadian human rights is
becoming a grab bag. It seems to be solving everything or it is
expanding its role. Under Bill C-64 it has been asked also to
expand its area of expertise into the employment equity issue.
I see a little problem with the Canadian Human Rights
Commission becoming the catchall for all this. I wonder if
rather than a human rights issue it could more properly be
administered under the Department of Labour because this is
typically an employee-employer type problem. We could
change this to the Department of Labour because it would be
best equipped to handle these types of employment related
matters.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the bill contains no deterrents
against destructive or frivolous whistleblowers, people who just
want to pass the time of day and harass employers. We will need
something there.
To conclude, the intent of Bill C-248 is noble. We agree with
its general direction but it is like a shell that needs to be filled
out. I appreciate the member's work in this area and I only feel
disappointed the government did not present this legislation.
This situation is much like the access to information
experience. There have been many private members' bills over
the years that sought to improve access to information. Given
the benefit of hindsight and the great amount of good the Access
to Information Act has done, the Liberal government would be
well advised to take this bill as an umbrella piece of legislation
and work with it. I realize it would be taking a bit of a risk.
Once this type of legislation is worked over in committee and
becomes law we will all wonder how we got by without it. It is a
good idea. We on this side of the House look forward with
anticipation when real whistleblowing legislation becomes a
reality.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-248 is a good bill, because it meets a blatant need. It is an
open secret that there is considerable waste and abuse in
government. I am vice-chairman of the committee on public
works. As the hon. member for St. Boniface who spoke for the
government knows full well, we have seen many cases of waste
and abuse in the public service, particularly when contracting
out is concerned, with an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion a
year in contracts awarded by the government to private
enterprise.
(1840)
In that sector alone, hundreds of millions of dollars may be
wasted through abuse and errors. The Public Service Alliance
told us about some absolutely incredible cases of waste. For
example, painters employed by the federal government were
moved aside as contracts were awarded to private sector
entrepreneurs, who were paid to do the work while public
servants stood by watching them. Some contracts and leases
were a real waste of government money. The waste is legendary.
13039
If public servants had the right to denounce such cases of
abuse, the government could save millions of dollars every
year. The public is well aware of this, and one of its most
common criticism is that the government is not careful enough
about its spending, especially since Canada faces a huge deficit.
It would be a good idea to draft such a bill in light of the
potential savings. This bill would also help restore the
credibility of the government and of politicians who, to a certain
extent, are held responsible for public service waste and abuse.
If public servants could denounce cases of abuse, this would
not only save money but also probably bring to light events or
actions endangering public health or safety.
Public servants reporting cases of abuse must be protected.
Thus, they would fell more inclined to report or blow the whistle
on the conduct of their superiors and coworkers. That is why
government employees need the kind of protection this bill is
designed to afford them.
There are many examples around the world of governments
that have already passed legislation to allow employees to
disclose instances of abuse and squandering within the public
service. In fact, this public administration philosophy is
increasingly popular in the United States.
More than 20 states in the U.S., including major states like
New York and California, are reported to have put in place
similar legislation enabling public servants to report abuse and
protecting them; in some states, the protection of the law even
extends to disclosure of abuse and squandering in the private
sector. We are light-years behind them in that respect.
And the U.S. is not alone. England also has similar
legislation. But we, in Canada, do not. It would be great, of
course, if the federal government could act on this. There is
every reason to do so. In fact, there is no valid reason not to pass
this bill, except perhaps a lack of will on the part of the
government. This is not even a partisan issue; it does not have
anything to do with being a federalist or a sovereignist. It is
strictly a matter of common sense. As other members
mentioned, public servants themselves and the Public Service
Alliance have come forward and expressed full support, for the
reasons stated previously.
There really is no reason not to pass this bill, because this is a
bill that will help the public service operate better and more
economically. Why not agree in principle with this bill, as
suggested by the hon. member for Saint-Boniface and the
representative of the Reform Party? Why not refer it to
committee, where improvements can be made if required so that
we can go some way toward providing Canada with a piece of
legislation enabling public servants to disclose instances of
abuse without being subjected to unfair retaliation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for Portneuf,
on a point of order.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, I
would like to ask the House if these is unanimous consent to find
this bill votable.
As we know, Canadians have been waiting for such a piece of
legislation. We have the opportunity to have an important
in-depth debate which would enlighten members of Parliament
as well as the public. Later on, we will have the opportunity, if
the House so desires, to vote to refer this bill to a committee.
What we are talking about now is to have two more
opportunities to debate this bill. Therefore, I ask the House for
its unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion presented by the member for Portneuf
seeking unanimous consent to find this item votable and to
debate it for two more hours.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, this item is dropped for the
Order Paper.
It being 6.50 p.m., this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.)